Skip to main content

Full text of "British birds"

See other formats

A eT ei i Be ee es et 
. Fey bee Doe r 

—_ ek eS. Sooo steed r noes, 

Oe La err tby on; canst Ptesde Te 
M £-OL OE Oo . “ 

NOD Ohms < ils atch tee og. ES, ee 

PAN A Hitt 90 ARS agg Sy tate 


ae ee ¢ > a, - on 
RRS SN teed See no 

IO om 06 


Mien te 
© 258 

Fae Aa Pipi oiemg 
SPAT Ot e - oe 1 Aaa 

BON tO tenet anor ee 
7 * = = s 

etna RePa . PADS, 

oN be Mone ty “5 

A tise Tih at aes oe 
Peiftne ae 

Meet om 
MIE bmn 

Bry 4027 egal ‘ . egy Ps ate = ; ars 
oe ee : Eee tra ae ge PIR Re Sai ee % Sn NESE ~ SE ee TRONS ; 
Nath ae Pi — ; ne? el Hi Shee a 4 nen ! y an a “ ei ot ae ee y TN as 
PW Na Sree die md hy ind Wu eet see 0 oh SE PH mn : 
Re dae fat re < te AE ing as 
. “ a 4 te Saws ithetnteeee —— 
£7 Pte? <4. nk hae ae one. 
“rs ; ty PAN Boe 


Peete metid oe 
ON Pt nag 

Fite ons, 

= 5 i eee Pty 
7 > 3 . nes hpehy agi Wea teak 

Peta =. : penal 7 plein aaicte eae ae ee 
pag bi sce ae i < * a ee 

- > pe mh Se —e 
ae ogee Sr ee > ATi. deat tern Soot wee 
; ; . > 2 “Keath thes ne 4 P nadee Darres 
ee arn Plana os tite ; 
EFS tite ; 

ARE alm 
Senedd din pe Sr ee a ee 

Sse epg ee I Rigel 


4 eit ae 
Se PPD Sern ym nape ge epigang Dan Ae 
ey baie a i Ol mo omy afin Il = es . a — 
ae S " aed aM tun = <n oe 
Plbpe lei, oh ot 
tah nea meat pena epi 
Bs Pa rian eee m0 
Se eae ee 
tlt wD, 
sete. ce 


SO 4K oR ee. 
PEED gam a, ot Mie a eae a < ad 

es ices 
ee ies a * : 

hae Pape ee ag, 
Se oe a 

eo eae 
bets aie ee Sn oe hans 59 y bee 
ge PR AE ee eR Se eA een wy _ 
+ A¥, ~~ 7 - ‘ 





wht fr 














” 4 







’ ». 



i a 














5 tp 
be Gs 


ee yyy git 







: z . g 

z : < - 

= 4 oo 4 

= a8) = oO. . 

(e) “BRS = oO om oO 

= J z ar = 


S) Be o ~ 5 

i = t nee = 

>. oa = A > 

E> Fe . E 

eS as Le = i 
ae eh Ce m Oe 

5 = . x Ks = 3 

z = 2 wW So z 

oO am ts oO a ie =i O 

at = i= x = - 
te Se : 

. iP : F i 
oo = ox = ox 
< > = < + % < 
re a bar ‘oe sar ra 
co — (ae) = fo) 
—< Me! oO os ro) an 
pa rs al z ae 
i 2 = ci a F cn 
w = ow = ow 
~ = rad > x a 
= = ce ie... “ 




ip, 4, 

2 on = 



<j te ee =o tapes — / 






Volume II. 
JUNE 1908—MAY 1909 




THE papers which have appeared in the pages of the 
volume now completed do not lose, we venture to think, 
by comparison with the contents of Volume I.; while 
the increase in the number of contributors may be taken, 
not only as an indication that BririsH Brrps justifies its 
existence, but no less as a sign that the study of our 
native avifauna is being pursued in a wider, and yet 
more thorough fashion than heretofore. 

In the excellent series of articles on ‘“ Early British 
Ornithologists and their Works,” we have been given a 
glimpse into the past, for which our readers will, we feel 
sure, join us in thanking Mr. W. H. Mullens, who has 
taken infinite pains to give accurate, as well as interesting 

The investigation into the causes and spread of Wood- 
Pigeon Diphtheria, which we commenced in our first 
volume, has been advanced a stage further, and though 
the subject bristles with difficulties, we intend, with 
Dr. C. B. Ticehurst’s aid, to pursue the enquiry. 

The valuable articles and notes on the habits, and 
especially the nesting habits of birds, have been a feature 
of the volume, and special mention may be made of 
Mr. Noble’s paper on the Ducks, and the interesting 
correspondence arising therefrom. The study of nestling 
birds, hitherto so strangely neglected, has in this volume 
made material progress, thanks to the work of Dr. C. B. 
Ticehurst and Miss A. Jackson, and we hope for more 
contributions on this subject. 

Of the manner of the distribution, and the nesting 
areas of our summer migrants, our knowledge is meagre, 
and the Messrs. Alexanders’ valuable paper illustrating 


their novel method of mapping out the haunts of selected 
species was therefore a most welcome contribution, and 
will serve as an invaluable model for further work. 
Hand in hand with research of this kind is that of 
marking birds, and considerable progress in this direction 
has recently been made. There are great possibilities in 
this method of tracing the movements and so on of 
individual birds, and we hope to devote special attention 
to it in the future. The subject of geographical races is 
linked with these migratory movements, and we are giad 
to note that a more general recognition of such races is 
being made. Our heartiest support will always be 
accorded to all who are endeavouring to add to our 
knowledge in this direction. 

Finally, we may refer to the articles on the additions 
to our knowledge of British Birds recorded since 1899, 
and now that these are complete, our readers will be 
enabled to acquire an up-to-date knowledge of the subject 
by ‘consulting Howard Saunders’ ‘“ Manual,” and the 
indices of the volumes of this Magazine. To keep these 
records up-to-date month by month, with the help of our 
contributors, and by reference to every contribution of 
interest . published elsewhere, will be our constant 


May Ist, 1909. 


Typical Feathers from Ducks’ Nests. (Reproduced 

direct from the feathers) Platel .. .. Frontispiece 

Male example of SCHLEGEL’s PETREL ((Hstrelata neglecta) 
found dead at ee Cheshire. re 
by Alfred Newstead) . 

Nest and Eggs of SHORT-EARED cate Fania at Ra 
worth, Notts. (Photographed by H. E. Forrest) . 

Typical Feathers from Ducks’ Nests. (Reprodncd 
direct from the feathers) Plate2 .. . facing 

‘<The Survey of Cornwall,” by Richard Cuter ee 
simile of Title Page) .. 

Markings in Mouths of Nestlings of the Pen Ter 

Sketch Map to show the distribution of Woop-PIGEON 

Nest of Common TERN : 
Pebble-paved Nest of Arcric ion on adel 
Arctic TERN’s Nest in Sand 

Arctic TERN sitting on Nest in Sand 

Arctic TERN’s Nest in high-water mark Drift 

Male LarGE-BILLED ReEED-BUNTING, obtained near 
Lydd, Kent 

LirtLe TERN on its Nest. Romney Marsh. (Photo- 
graphed by F. B. Kirkman) Plate 3 .. facing 

Arctic TERN’s Nest, with Pebbles and Bent .. 
Lesser TErn’s Nest in Shingle at Romney Marsh 
Common TeErn’s Nest of Broom at Romney Marsh 

eeminax Rerum ....... Britannicarum,” by Christopher 
Merrett. (Facsimile of Title Page) 

Sketch Map illustrating flight of StaRLINGS 






GREEN WOODPECKER. i i oy Miss Turner) 
Plate 4.. rs . facing 

Guarding the Entrance. (Phiotogiannted ay Miss Banas 
Old English Nesting Bottles 
KILLDEER PLOVER, shot near Lydd, rene 

‘“A Late Voyage to St. Kilda,” a M. Martin. (Fac- 
simile of Title Page) . : , > 

Sketch Map of St. Kilda .. 

Nest of MArsH-WARBLER in Somerset Pe 
Diagram showing the Down-tracks of Nestling Birds. . 
Nest of Scaup-Duck. (Photographed by P. H. Bahr). . 

Duck and Drake Scaup and pause Site. (Drawn by 
P. a Bahr) 

The Duck Scavue coming , off the Naat (Drawn by 
P. A Bahr) 

Nest of Turrep Duck in the same hollow as the 
Scaup’s Nest. (Photographed by P. H. Bahr) 

Plate from Plot’s ‘‘ Natural History of Staffordshire,” 
showing the taking of young “ Pewits.”’ Plate 5 

PALLAS’s GRASSHOPPER-WARBLER, picked up dead at 
the Rockabill Lighthouse (co. Dublin) 

Aquatic WARBLER, Eastbourne, Sussex. (Drawn by 
KE. C. ARNOLD) = s% 

A Tame SNIPE and its habits. Figs. 1-8 

THOMAS PENNANT. (From the Engraving by J. aa 
after the Painting by 'T. Gainsborough) 

Diagrams illustrating the length of wings of the Gamma 

Drawing illustrating amputation of Lavwrhet S ae by 
means of Wool 

BuLWER’S PETREL, picked up near vite Sussex 
“The Ornithology of Francis Willughby,” by John 
Ray. (Facsimile of Title Page) Plate 6 .. facing 

JOHN Ray. (From the Engraving by H. eae Bios a 
Picture in the British Museum) . 

Facsimile of Entry in Parish Register of John Ray: s 
Baptism, and that of another John Ray .. 


’ Site of a Rostin’s Nest after a Snowstorm 

LirtLe TERN on the Nest, Spurn, Yorkshire. (Photo- 
graphed by Oxley Grabham) Plate 7 .. facing 

LirtLe TERN—KEggs in a slight scoop on fine sand. 
(Photographed by Oxley Grabham) .. 

LirtLe TERN—Newly-hatched Young. (Photographed 
by Oxley Grabham) =e 

LirrLe TERN calling to her Mate. (Photographed by 
Oxley Grabham) 

LirtLe TrrRN on the Nest. (Photographed by Oxley 
Grabham) ar 

Map showing the haunts of some Migrants in Part of 
the Borough of Tunbridge Wells 

THomas Bewicx. (From the Engraving by F. haan 
after the Picture by James Ramsay) 

‘“* History of British Birds.” (Facsimile of Title Pee) 

GrorRGE Montaau. (From the Original Miniature in 
the possession of the Linnzean Society, London) 
Diagram of ring used for ae Birds at the Rossitten 

Station. . 

Male BLACK-THROATED pest ee at Regan 

Immature Female BuAack and Run Gite, eer rer 
shot near Bala, North Wales 

Witit1am Macainiivray. (from the nature ii 
Vertebrate Fauna of the Outer Hebrides.’’) 

WILLIAM YARRELL (after the Frontispiece by F. A. 
Heath, to the 3rd Edition of Yarrell’s “ cae of 
British Fishes ’’) : : 

A nesting haunt of the Goosinuee 


i. i pee 
he Pea) ey eee 


-A Work on this gubject, ‘illustrated with BEAUTIFULLY 
COLOURED PLATES, is now. being issued. 

Write for Full Prsaeshes and a Part for inspection to 

4%, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


Naturalists’ Camera, 
; 1907 MODEL, 
For Telephoto or Ordinary LENSES. 
_ Lenses are used 
by the most 

~~ skilled Bird | 


The following ave. 
spectally recommended : 

THE STIGMATIC SERIES i F/6 (Convertible) 

(A Rapid Long Focus Lens‘at.a Moderate Price.) 

High or Moderate Power Telephoto Lenses (Original Make). aj 
We are Specialists i in Cameras and Apparatus for edie ge 



Showrooms: 25, NEWMAN es W.. “NEASDEN, LONDON, a! g ce 


2 aturalists, - bis Gee 
And Manufacturers of CABINETS and APPARATUS for Entomology, Birds’: Fags ae 
and Skins, and all Branches of Natural History. ‘ 


Speciality : —Objects for Nature Study, Drawing Classes, &c. 


All Books and Publications on Natural History mingled: 

36, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. (Five Doors doo Seis Gross.) af 

Catalaras (102 pp.) pees free. 


BRITISH BIRDS, Vol. I1., Pl. 7. 

TypicaL FEATHERS FROM Ducks’ NEsTs. 

Nat. size. 

(Reproduced direct from the feathers.) (For explanation see p. 23). 


peeve ley BY W. P. PYCRAFT, ALS, M.BO.U. 

ConTENTS OF NuMBER 1, Vor. II. June 1, 1908. 

Editorial . pe ‘ se Page 1 

Some Early British Gea nolacicts ea their Worked by 
W. H. Mullens, M.a., Lu.M.,. M.B.0.U. i aera 
Turner be ; 5 

On the Occurrence of Ealecal's Petrel ( Geri eiTooeas 
in Cheshire: a new British and European Bird, by 

Robert Newstead, a.u.s., and T. A. Coward, F.z.s... 14 
On the Identification of Ducks’ Bees, by feohpe Noble, 
M.B.0.U. (Plate I.) . 18 

On the More eaeeant Additions to our aeeendie of 
British Birds since 1899, by H. F. Witherby and N. F. 
Ticehurst. Part X. (continued from Vol. I., page 350). . 24 

Notes :—Aquatic Warbler in Cornwall (C. B. Ticehurst). 
White Wagtail in Cornwall (C. B. Ticehurst). Blue- 
Headed Wagtail in Nottinghamshire (J. Whitaker). 
An Escaped Nutcracker (G. M. Beresford-Webb). The 
Black Woodpecker in England (Thos. Southwell). 
Short-Eared Owl Breeding in Nottinghamshire (J. 
Whitaker). Eiders off South Devon in April (K. S. 
Smith): Stock-Dove Nesting on Buildings (B. B. 
Riviere). Spotted Crake in Sussex (C. B. Ticehurst). 
Kentish Plover in Cheshire (T. A. Coward). Purple 
Sandpiper in the Channel Islands (C. B. Ticehurst). 
Redshank Breeding in Warwickshire (A. G. Leigh). 
Black Tern in Cheshire (T. A. Coward). Birds in Norfolk 
in 1907 (J. H. Gurney). A Plan for Marking Birds 
(H. F. W.). Marked Birds (C. B. Ticehurst), etc. ae 28 


THANKS to the generous support accorded it during its 
first year of life, and to that which has been promised 
already for the future, BritisH Brrps enters upon its 
second year with the prospect of a useful career before it. 
The programme, which we are already able to announce, 
for the next twelve months is sufficient in itself to show 
that there will be no falling off in the interest of our 
pages ; but, on the contrary, as the year wears on, doubt- 
less we shall receive many other articles in every way as 


attractive and as valuable as those we have now the good 
fortune to announce. Of these, some, we hope, will bear 
on the themes to be presently suggested. 

Not the least interesting matter in our new programme 
will be, we venture to think, the series of essays on Karly 
British Ornithologists and their Work, by Mr. W. H. 
Mullens. As many of our readers doubtless know, there 
are few men so able to appraise the work of these old 
authors as Mr. Mullens, who has for some time been 
engaged in the study of these early authors, and during 
that time he has brought together an extensive collection 
of their books, many of which are quite inaccessible to the 
working ornithologist, and these are to be drawn upon for 
our benefit. There are some, indeed, who seem inclined 
to decry the labours of these pioneers—who mark only 
the inaccurate and, sometimes, absurd statements which 
passed with them for knowledge, and forget how difficult 
were the conditions under which they were compelled to 
labour. But the spirit of kindly appreciation shown by 
Mr. Mullens will enable us to realize that libraries in those 
days, even where they existed, were not easily accessible ; 
and the dangers and difficulties of travel, even within 
the confines of Great Britain, were greater than we can 
readily imagine. We are, in short, inclined to forget that 
we have entered into their labours, and have built upon 
the foundations which they laid. 

There are many aspects of the bionomical, or, as some 
prefer to call it, the cecological side of our study which 
demand more attention than they have generally met 
with among ornithologists of this country. And we hope 
that some of our readers may be induced to send us 
contributions on such subjects, for example, as bear upon 
the influence of climate on plumage, and on the inter- 
relations of species. On this last theme, there are 
several important cases awaiting systematic investiga- 
tion: such, for instance, as the effect of the increasing 
numbers of Starlings on the Woodpecker; and of the 
decrease in the Swallow-tribe through the pugnacity of 
the House-Sparrow. How much of truth is there in the 
isolated statements which, of recent years, have been 
made on these subjects? Many other kindred problems 
will doubtless suggest themselves to our readers. 



The subject of Economic Ornithology in this country 
has been scandalously neglected. So far, scraps of in- 
formation, mostly incorrect and gathered at haphazard, 
generally by strongly biassed partizans, have been made 
to serve our needs. No attempt to remedy this state of 
affairs can possibly meet with success which is not made 
in all seriousness, and carried out on strictly scientific 
lines. One cannot “‘ dabble” with a problem of this kind. 
We had hoped very much to be able to carry on a pre- 
liminary investigation of the kind we are so anxious to 
see carried out, but a careful calculation has convinced 
us that the cost of such an enterprise would be prohibitive. 
We must again express the hope that an investigation 
will be undertaken by the Board of Agriculture, as has 
long been done, both on the Continent and in America, and 
with magnificent results. To carry conviction such an 
investigation must be prosecuted by an impartial body, 
and one which can command the services of fully qualified 
experts, whose work must be carried out under conditions 
which leave no loophole for doubt. 

In the present number will be found the first section 
of an article framed for the purpose of facilitating the 
identification of Ducks’ eggs—a by no means easy matter. 
Read with the help of the coloured plates which the 
generosity of the author enables us to provide, we feel 
sure that this contribution will overcome the difficulty 
that has hitherto existed in the determination of doubtful 

Among other articles already promised we may mention 
the following: Mr. Boyd Alexander on the British 
migrants which he met with in his last great journey 
from the Niger to the Nile; Mr. E. Bidwell on Cuckoo 
fosterers; Mr. J. L. Bonhote on British birds which have 
bred in captivity; Mr. W. H. Kirkman on variations 
in the nest-building of the Common and Arctic Terns ; 
Commander H. Lynes on the habits of our summer 
birds when on migration in the Mediterranean ; Mr. 
M. J. Nicoll on the moult of the Swallow; and 
Prof. Lloyd Morgan on some aspects of the psychology 
of nest-building, or some kindred theme to be determined 
by him later. That this will prove a welcome and valuable 
contribution there is no need to doubt, for Prof. Morgan 


is the greatest authority on this difficult subject in this 

As we have already announced, the articles on ‘‘ Addi- 
tions to our Knowledge of British Birds since 1899” will 
be continued and completed in the present volume, and 
the results of the Wood-Pigeon enquiry will be given by 
Dr. C. B. Ticehurst in an early issue. Other contributors _ 
to last year’s volume will interest us again, and photo- 
graphy, as an aid to our science, will be to the fore. 

We have given an outline of our programme; but let 
no intending contributor think that our space is exhausted. 
We shall always find room for anything which we think 
should be put before the readers of BriTisH BrrDs. 

Finally, we need hardly say that we shall continue to 
make a feature of ‘‘ Notes,” which, we hope, will increase 
in number and importance, while we shall make a point, 
as hitherto, of extracting from all sources information of 
importance to the student of British birds, and thus 
provide a current history of the subject; and in this 
connection we must again ask our readers’ help by draw- 
ing attention to papers and records which have escaped 
our notice. 




W. H. MULLENS, M.a., LL.M., M.B.O.U. 

(circa 1500—1568). 

Tue history of British ornithology may be said to commence 
from the time of William Turner, famous both as a naturalist 
and anauthor. Born just 400 years ago, this illustrious 
man, who is styled the “ Father of English Botany,” is 
perhaps best known for his researches in that department 
of natural history ; but he also excelled in several branches 
of zoology, and his claim to be considered the earliest 
responsible authority on the birds of this country is 

Before Turner’s time, the available knowledge concerning 
British birds was small indeed. It is true that a quaint 
and very credulous writer, Giraldus Cambrensis (1146-1223) 
had in his Topography of Ireland (written in 1187, and 
first published in 1587) devoted ten chapters to a description 
of the birds of that country, but his observations, although 
made at first hand, are confused and unreliable, and more 
curious than instructive.* Passing mention of certain 
birds is also to be found in the itineraries of some of the 
earlier English writers, ¢.9., William of Worcester (ob. 1480), 
and John Leland (ob. 1552), and some information con- 
cerning the Hawks and Game Birds can be obtained from 
the old books of the chase—the most famous example of 
which is The Boke of St. Albans, containing the Treatises 
of Hawking, Hunting, and Coat-Armour, printed at St. 
Albans, 1486, and attributed to Dame Juliana Barnes, or 

* cf. also Forrest, “ The Fauna of North Wales,”’ p. XXv. 


Berners. The early forest laws, and the different Acts 
of Parliament enjoining the protection or destruction 
of certain birds, may also be consulted with advantage, 
but these necessarily include only a few species in their 

Small as the knowledge of birds was in this country, it 
can hardly be said to have stood in better case in Continental 
Europe. There the study of natural history had made 
little or no advance since the days of Aristotle and Pliny. 
It had been, in common with much else, enveloped and 
obscured in the intellectual gloom of the Middle Ages. 
Those few medizeval writers who concerned themselves 
with the subject of natural history were content to derive 
their information from the great Greek and Latin authors 
of the classic age, and while attempting in no way to improve 
or elaborate such information, they rather, in the spirit of 
the age in which they wrote, disguised it with a mass of 
superstition and ignorance. It must, of course, be 
remembered that their books were chiefly written with a 
medicinal purpose, and that their object was to set forth 
the various strange curative properties which they ascribed 
to the component parts of the birds and beasts they 
mentioned, rather than to study or describe the animals 
themselves. Among the more prominent medizval authors 
who treated of birds at any considerable length, it may 
here suffice to mention the following :—Albertus Magnus 
(ob. 1282), whose twenty-six books, De Animalibus, were 
printed in 1478; Vicentius Belovacensis (ob. 1264), 
whose Speculum Nature was published at Strasburg about 
the same date; and Bartholomew de Glanville, commonly 
known as Bartholomeus Anglius (fl. 1230-1255), from 
whose famous work, De Proprietatibus Rerum, first printed 
at Basle, circa 1470, we can obtain a good idea of the 
general state of knowledge concerning natural history in 
the Middle Ages. Mention should also be made of a 
work entitled (1)Ortus Sanitatis, commonly ascribed to 
Johannes de Cuba, and published at Mainz in 1475. This, 
though professedly a herbal, deals in its third tractatus 


with “ Birds and Flying-Things,” and being the first printed 
book to contain illustrations of birds, must always be of 
interest to the student of early ornithology. 

It was not until the middle of the sixteenth century that 
the general revival of learning throughout Europe touched 
the study of ornithology in particular, and that of natural 
history in general. This revival, as far as it affected 
ornithology, was largely due to the illustrious Conrad 
Gesner (1516-1565), and his able contemporaries, Pierre 
Belon (1517-1564), author of L’ Histoire de la Nature des 
Oyseaux (Paris, 1555), Gybertus Longolius (1507-1543), 
who wrote the Dialogus de Avibus, and William Turner, 
the subject of this article. In no way inferior in ability 
to the authors mentioned, Turner was in point of publication 
their leader, his book Aviwm ... . historia, appearing 
in 1544, eleven years before the ornithological works of 
Belon and Gesner were printed. 

William Turner* was born at the beginning of the 
sixteenth century at Morpeth, in Northumberland, the 
exact date of his birth bemg unknown, as the registers of 
his native town date only from the year 1582. He is said 
to have been the son of a tanner, but of his childhood and 
early education we have no record. Through the influence 
of Thomas, Lord Wentworth, Turner in due course became 
a member of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, where he graduated 
B.A. 1529-30. He became a Fellow of his College in 1531, 
and its Senior Treasurer in 1538. His M.A. degree he 
commenced in 1533. How long he retained his Fellowship 
is uncertain. Mr. Jackson thinks he may have held it 
until his marriage with Jane, daughter of George Ander, 
alderman of Cambridge. 

At Cambridge, Turner was a contemporary of the famous 
John Caius, founder of the college which bears his name, 
and also one of our earliest writers on natural history (his 
De rariorum animalium atque stirpium Hrstoria was 

* The particulars of Turner’s life are derived from those given in 
the facsimile reprint of Turner’s ‘“Libellus de re Herbaria,” by 

Benjamin Daydon Jackson, F.L.S., privately printed, London, 1877. 
1 vol., 4to. 


published at London, 1570). It was probably during his 
residence at Cambridge that Turner first directed his 
attention to the study of birds, while there, no doubt the 
fascination of the Fens fell upon him, as it has fallen on so 
many since his time, and it was in the Fens that many of 
his most valuable observations were made on birds which, 
then resident, are now only known as rare stragglers to 
this country. It seems unlikely that Turner could have 
devoted much time to natural history before he went to the 
University, as he himself informs us that he had never seen 
the nest of the Water Ousel or Dipper, a somewhat curious 
fact when we remember that he was a native of Northumber- 

It was in 1538, while still at Cambridge, that Turner 
published his first work on natural history, entitled :— 

Libellus de / re Herbaria Novvs, / in quo her- 
barum aliquot no- / mina Greca, Latina & 
Anglica / habes, vna cum nomini- / bus officin- 
arum, in / gratiam stu- / diose iuuentutis nunc 
pri- / mum in lucem / editus. 

Such was the prevailing ignorance of those times 
that, writing thirty years later, he bitterly complains 
that he could get no assistance in his work from his 
contemporaries :— 

‘“ Wher as I could learne never one Greke, neither 
Latin, nor English name, even amongest the Phisicions 
of any herbe or tre, suche was the ignorance in simples 
at that tyme, and as yet there was no Englishe Herbal 
but one, al full of unlearned Cacographees and falselye 
naming of herbes.”’ 

During his stay at Cambridge, Turner became an 
intimate friend of Nicholas Ridley (1500-1555), and of 
Hugh Latimer, Ridley’s fellow martyr at the stake. 
From Ridley, Turner received his first instruction in 
Greek, and, influenced by the teaching of the Reformers, 
he now embraced those religious views for which he 
laboured so zealously during the remainder of his life. 
Leaving his University he travelled through a consider- 


able part of England, preaching, and while at Oxford he 
was imprisoned for: preaching “ without a call.’’ When, 
** At length being let loose, and banished, he travelled 
into Italy.” 

In Italy Turner studied botany under Luca Ghini, at 
Bologna, and took the degree of M.D. either at that 
University or at Ferrara. Continuing his travels, he 
visited the illustrious Conrad Gesner, at Zurich, and 
became a firm friend and trusted correspondent of that 
great naturalist. 

Turner seems to have been at Basle in 1543, and the 
following year at Cologne. From this latter place he 
issued in 1544 his Aviwm Precipuarum ... . hostoria, 
dedicated to Edward, Prince of Wales (afterwards 
Edward VI.), and in the same year the posthumous work 
of his friend, Gybertus Longolius, of Utrecht (1507-1543), 
entitled Dialogus de Avibus. Turner’s polemical works. 
now followed each other in quick succession, and were 
prohibited by a proclamation of Henry VIII. On the 
death of that monarch, Turner returned to England, 
and whilst waiting for ecclesiastical preferment acted as 
physician to the Lord Protector, Somerset. 

At length, after several disappointments, Turner 
obtained the Deanery of Wells in 1550. 

The accession of Queen Mary saw Turner again a 
fugitive, and his writings were once more prohibited in 
England, and ordered to be destroyed wherever found. 
He returned to his native country when Elizabeth 
succeeded her sister, and was reinstated in his Deanery. 
In 1564, however, he was again suspended for non- 
conformity, and took up his abode in London. ‘There 
he died on the 7th July, 1568, and was buried in the 
Church of St. Olave, Crutched Friars, where may be seen 
a tablet to his memory erected by his widow. 

The book on which Turner’s fame as an ornithologist 
rests has the following title :— 

“ Avium / Precipu / arum, quarum / apud 
Plinium et Ari- / stotelem mentio est, brevis 


& / succincta historia. / Ex optimis quibusque 
scripto- / ribus Contexta, Scholio illu / strata 
& aucta. / Adjectis nominibus Grecis, Ger- 
manicis & / Britannicis. / Per Dn. Guilielmum 
Turnerum, artium & Me- / dicine doctorem / 
Coloniz excudebat Ioan. Gymnicus, / Anno 

1 Vol., 8vo., pages unnumbered, 157 (cf. bts, 1899, p. 153). 

The above is the first edition. It was reprinted by 
Dr. George Thackeray, Provost of King’s College, 
Cambridge, in 1823; the reprint is said to be as rare as 
the original—and again by Mr. A. H. Evans, in 1903, 
at the Cambridge University Press—Mr. Evans’ edition 
contains a full translation and many valuable notes. 

Turner’s object in writing this work is set out both 
in the title and in the EHpistola Nuncupatoria thereof. 
This was to determine the principal kinds of birds named 
by Aristotle and Pliny in their writings. In addition 
to this, he also added copious notes on those species 
which came under his own immediate observation, 
‘and in so doing he has produced the first book on birds 
which treats them in anything like a scientific spirit,” 
and not merely from a medical point of view. But the 
great value of Turner’s work consists in the fact that he 
is always most careful to tell us whether he observed the 
birds he describes in England or abroad, and it is for this 
reason that his comments are of such importance to the 
student of British ornithology. It must here suffice to 
give a few short extracts. 

Speaking of the Crane, he says :—‘‘ The smaller, that 
is, younger, Cranes, are called by Pliny, Vipiones, as 
young Doves are known as Pipiones. Cranes, moreover, 
breed in England in marshy places; I myself have often 
seen their pipers [young Pigeons are still called pipers 
in England], though some people born away from England 
urge that this is false ” (cf. Evans’ Ed., p. 97). 

And of the Kite, or ‘‘ Kyte ” :—‘“‘ I know two sorts of 
Kites, the greater and the less; the greater is in colour 


nearly rufous, and in England is abundant and remark- 
ably rapacious. This kind is wont to snatch food out of 
children’s hands, in our cities and towns. The other 
kind is smaller, blacker, and more rarely haunts cities. 
This I do not remember to have seen in England... .” 
(cf. Evans Id., p. 117). 

His remarks on the Black Tern, which ceased to breed 
in this country about the middle of the last century, 
the last recorded eggs having been taken in Norfolk in 
1858, are also of considerable importance, especially 
when we consider that this bird still visits the British 
Isles with unfailing regularity :—‘‘ There is another 
small bird of. this kind called Stern* in local dialect, 
which is so like the sea Lari that it seems to differ 
from them only in its size and colour; for it is a 
Larus, though smaller than the sea Lari, and blacker. 
Throughout the whole of summer, at which time it breeds, 
it makes such an unconscionable noise that by its 
unrestrained clamour it almost deafens those who live 
near lakes and marshes. This, I certainly believe to be 
the bird whose vile garrulity gave rise to the old proverb 
‘Larus partavit.’ It is almost always flying over lakes 
and swamps, never at rest, but always open-mouthed for 
prey. This bird nests in thick reed-beds” (cf. Evans’ 
Hd., p: 79). | 

The care and trouble which Turner took in verifying 
the statements of Aristotle and Pliny is shown in the 
following passage :—‘* The Mergus [7.e., Cormorant], a 
sad-coloured bird, is nearly equal to a goose in size, with 
the bill long and hooked at the end; it is web-footed, 
heavy in the body, and the attitude is upright in the 
sitting bird. Pliny writes that it nests on trees, but 
Aristotle says on sea-rocks. What each man saw or 
learnt from the reports: of bird-catchers, he has set down 
in writing. And I have observed both birds myself, 
for I have seen Mergi nesting on sea-cliffs about the 
mouth of the Tyne river, and on lofty trees in Norfolk 
with the Herons” (cf. Evans’ Ed., p. 111). 

* «The Black Tern (Sterna nigra).”’ 


- The following affords us some idea of the value in which 
the Godwit was held as a table bird :—‘* Furthermore, the 
bird (which ‘the English call the Godwit, or Fedoa ’*) 
is so much like the Woodcock that, if it were not a little . 
larger, and did not the breast verge upon ash-colour, 
the one of them could hardly be distinguished from the 
other. It is found in marshy places and on river banks. 
The beak is long; but in captivity it feeds on wheat, 
just as our Pigeons do. With us it sells for thrice as much 
again as any Woodcock, so much does its flesh tickle the 
palates of our magnates ”’ (cf. Evans’ Ed., p. 45). 

Equally interesting are his observations of the Hobby, 
Hen-Harrier, Water Ousel (or Dipper),+ Bald-Buzzard 
(or Marsh-Harrier), Osprey, Wheatear, Sandpiper, 
Fieldfare, Cuckoo, Black-headed Gull, and many other 
birds, and though he fell into the prevailing error 
with regard to the generation of the Bernacle Goose, 
the fault was hardly his own. Misled by the accounts 
he had read and heard on this subject, he was by 
no means convinced, and as he tells us :—‘*‘ Inasmuch 
as it seemed hardly safe to trust the vulgar, and 
by reason of the rarity of the thing I did not quite credit 
Gyraldus [7.e., Giraldus Cambrensis], while I thought on 
this, of which I now am writing, I took counsel of a 
certain man, whose upright conduct, often proved by me, 
had justified my trust, a theologian by profession and an 
Irishman by birth, Octavian by name, whether he thought 
Gyraldus worthy of belief in this affair.’ The said 
Octavian, however, not only informed our author that 
the popular fable was a fact, but, further, “ taking oath 
upon the very Gospel which he taught,” stated that he 
had seen and handled the young Bernacles as they emerged 
from the fungi of wood rotted in the sea, and even promised 
to forward Turner “some of these growing Chicks.” 

* Vide Newton ‘“ Dict. Birds,” p. 248. 
+ The name ‘“ Dipper” was first applied to the Water Ouzel by 

Marmaduke Tunstall in his ‘‘ Ornithologia Britannica.’’ London. 
177il. Ivel., folio. 


Turner was held in great estimation by Gesner, who 
quotes him freely in his writings under the title of 
Turnerus Anglus (cf. Evans’ Ed., p. x1., etc.). There 
is no evidence that Turner studied mammals, but he 
certainly published one or more works on ichthyology, 
besides supplying Gesner with much information about 
the fishes of Great Britain.* 

In taking leave of William Turner, it only remains to 
add that the authentic books of this remarkable man 
number no less than thirty-nine, and to quote the 
description of him given by John Ray :—‘ Vir solide 
eruditionis et judici.” 

* cf. Art. by Rev. H. A. Macpherson, “ Zoologist,’’ 1898, p. 337. 

( 4 ) 



ROBERT NEWSTEAD, a.1.s., & T. A. COWARD, F.z.s. 

On April Ist, 1908, an example of one of the ‘‘ Dove- 
like Fulmars’’ was found dead under a tree near 
Tarporley, Cheshire, by a man who attends the weekly 
market at Chester. On the fourth day after its dis- 
- covery the bird was offered to Mr. Arthur Newstead, 
who subsequently purchased it ; it is now in his posses- 
sion. The bird, a male, was examined by one of us 
while it was still in the flesh, an outline drawing was 
made of it, and the colour of the soft parts, the weight, 
and other details, carefully noted. The bird was in an 
excellent state of preservation, and, as might be expected 
with a Petrel, there was no indication that it had been 
in captivity. 

The distinguishing characters of the bird are as 
follows :—Uniformly brown, paler beneath ; forehead and 
cheeks faintly mottled; ‘‘ exposed portion of the outer 
primary beneath—white towards the base of the inner 
web.’’* Tarsi, proximal third of the toes, and webs, 
bluish-grey ; the rest of the feet black. Tail very 
slightly rounded. Bill black. Irides dark hazel. 

The details are :—Upper-surface dark brown, head and 
neck decidedly greyer ; all the feathers edged with paler 
brown, with the exception of some of the scapulars, 
which are also decidedly darker (blackish-brown) than 
the feathers of the back; forehead and cheeks mottled 
with brown. Under-surface greyish-brown, in a strong 

* Salvin, Cat. Birds in coll. Brit. Museum, XXV., p. 397. 


light presenting a marked grey reflection; traces of 
narrow, interrupted, obscure dark bands on the breast, 
which are evident only when closely examined in a good 
light. Under tail-coverts dark-brown; bases white. 
Under wing-coverts and axillaries brown with paler 
margins ; primaries blackish-brown, bases of inner webs 
and shafts white. Concealed bases of all the feathers 
white, a character most strongly marked on the neck and 

Male example of Schlegel’s Petrel (@strelata neglecta) found dead at 
Tarporley, Cheshire, April Ist, 1908. 

(Photographed by ALFRED NEWSTEAD.) 

breast, where the grey-brown tips barely cover the under- 
lying portions, so that on the slightest displacement of 
the feathers the white proximal portions show distinctly 

Total length, 15 inches ; wing 11.1; tail, central and 
lateral rectrices, 4; bill, 1.7; tarsus, 1.5; middle and 
outer toe, 2.1; inner toe, 1.7. Weight, 16 oz. 

* Salvin, op. cit., p. 412. 


This example agrees best with the dark-breasted 
form of @. neglecta (Schlegel), but this species, according 
to Salvin,* has the tarsi and basal portions of the toes 
yellow. However this may be, we find on comparing 
our specimen with an example of the dark-breasted form 
of @. neglecta, in the collection of the Liverpool Museum, 
and with the specimens in the Natural History Museum, 
South Kensington, that they are, we think, specifically 
identical. The plumage agrees in almost every detail. 
Furthermore, Salvin* states that ‘ great variation 
exists as to the colour of the under-surface, some birds 
being nearly uniform greyish-brown.”’ 

. arminjoniana, Gigl. and Salvad., comes very near 
it, but this species is said to have the ‘“ under tail- 
coverts white,’’t and there are other marked differences. 

Both the species hitherto recorded for the British 
Isles [Z. hesitata, Kuhl., and @. brevipes (Peale)], belong 
to that section of the genus (@strelata. in which the 
exposed portion of the outer primary beneath is dark 
not white, so that, apart from other differences, the 
Cheshire specimen cannot be either of these. 

Regardless, therefore, of the difference in the colour of 
the feet and legs, we have come to the conclusion that 
our specimen is referable to @strelata neglecta, and that 
this species should be added to our fauna as a wanderer 
to the British Isles. Drs. Bowdler Sharpe and Du Cane 
Godman, to whom we showed the specimen, are of 
opinion that our conclusion is warranted. 

(HZ. neglecta is known only as a South Pacific species ; 
it has been obtained in the neighbourhood of the 
Kermadec Islands, but little is known about its range. 
Apparently it has never before been recorded as 
occurring in Europe. On March 25th the wind in 
Cheshire veered from the south-east to the west, and 
later to the N.N.W. On the 27th it backed to the 
S.S.W., rising in force, and remained westerly until the 
31st, when, as registered at Manchester, it was blowing 

* Salvin, op. cit., p. 412. + Salvin, op. cit., p. 413. 


with an average velocity of 21 miles an hour. Tarporley 
is about 11 miles S.S.E. of the Mersey Estuary, 16 miles 
S.E. of the Dee Estuary, some 60 miles E. of Cardigan 
Bay, and over 100 miles N. of the Bristol Channel. 
From the condition of the bird when found we conclude 
that it dropped towards the end of the month, probably 
on or about March 31st, when the westerly winds were 
at their strongest. 

The bird was exhibited at the meeting of the 
Zoological Society held on May 12th, and at the meeting 
of the British Ornithologists’ Club held on May 20th 


(Puate I.) 

THE eggs of various species of Anatide are so frequently 
sent to me for identification that I have gained some 
experience in the matter, and it has been thought that 
the results of that experience might be of some interest 
to readers of BritisH Birps. 

There are three means of identification—(1) the eggs 
themselves; (2) the down found in the nests; (3) the 
feathers which are generally mixed with the down. The 
last provides by far the most important and certain means 
of identification, although it is seldom mentioned by 
writers on this subject. The down by itself is not 
reliable except in isolated cases. 

Take, for example, that found in the nests of the 
Wigeon and the Shoveler ; it would be a bold ornithologist 
who would guarantee to separate the two were they mixed 
together. The clue is given by the feathers, those of the 
Wigeon being white sometimes with grey centres, and quite 
unmistakable. Then, again, the down in different nests 
of the same species is often so dissimilar that it appears 
to belong to different species. I think I shall be able to 
show that if the eggs, down, and feathers are all con- 
sidered in relation to each other, identification, if not 
absolutely certain, becomes little doubtful. 

Occasionally cases arise which are distinctly difficult. 
Last season, for instance, a beautiful nest of snow-white 
down, with white eggs and white feathers tipped with 
grey, was sent me from Ireland. The nest had been taken 
in heather, not from a hole, as might be expected from 
the colour of the down. It certainly belonged to no — 
British, or even European, breeding duck, neither was it 
that of any foreign duck usually kept in confinement. 


The female was eventually shot, and proved to be a 
speckled mongrel mallard! Another interesting case 
was that of an unmistakable Wigeon’s egg found in a 
Wild Duck’s nest, with equally unmistakable down of 
the latter. The Wigeon had laid in the same nest after 
the larger duck had hatched off. I have known more 
than one instance of this, Anas boscas being an early 
breeder and the Wigeon much later. 

In this article I have been asked to include the 
Golden-eye, Velvet Scoter, and Long-tailed Duck. 
Although these three have not as yet been proved to have 
bred in these islands, there is some evidence that at least 
two of the species named may have done so, and there 
seems no reason why they should not. 

Most of the following remarks are from personal 
observation, and, with the exception of the three species 
mentioned above, the nests described have been found 
by the writer. 

ComMonN SHELD-DUCK (T'adorna cornuta).—The eggs 
of this bird could hardly be confused with those of any 
other British duck except, perhaps, the Goosander. 
They are creamy white, rather lighter and more glossy 
than those of the latter. The down is light pearl-grey, 
and larger than that of the Goosander, while the feathers 
render a mistake impossible, for they are tipped with black, 
or occasionally red-brown. There is no doubt that this 
handsome duck is greatly on the increase. The nests 
are generally placed in a hole in a sandbank, not far from 
the sea, but at Wolverton, in Norfolk, I have found them 
more than two miles from the shore. On this estate the 
keeper informs me that the female Sheld-duck may often 
be seen conducting her brood through the village in the 
early morning, en route for the sea, and they are sometimes 
noticed marching down the railway line to the same 
destination. So numerous are they in this carefully 
protected area, that whilst I was examining a nest 
twenty-three adult birds were counted in the air at the 
same time. On June 3rd this nest contained fifteen eggs 


about a quarter incubated, and underneath were many 
old egg-shells, showing that the hole had been occupied 
the previous season. In confinement I have known the 
‘* Burrow Duck ”’ to nest in a hole in a tree. (PI. [., Fig. 1.) 

MatiLarD (Anas boscas).—Though this species is usually 
an early breeder, nests may be found throughout the spring 
and summer months, from March, or even February, 
until well on into June. The eggs of this bird vary more 
than those of any other British duck, from greenish-blue 
they range through yellowish-cream colour to white. 
The down is large, brown in colour, with light centres, 
the points hardly lighter than the rest. The down might 
be confused with that of the Pintail, although the latter 
is smaller. The flank feathers found amongst the down 
are, however, larger, more pointed, and very different in 
pattern, as will be seen by reference to figures 2 (Mallard) 
and figures 7 (Pintail) in Plate I. 

GADWALL (A. strepera).—This bird is now well estab- 
lished in certain parts of Norfolk and Suffolk. In the 
Thetford district it is one of the commonest ducks in 
winter, and a certain number remain to breed. ‘The nests 
I have seen in the Eastern Counties and in Spain have 
never been far from water; one was in a wood close to a 
river, and another in a reed-bed at the edge of a large 
lagoon. The eggs are buffish-white, with no tinge of 
green ; the down is very dark, with small light centres, 
and with distinct grey points. The feathers are small, 
light in colour, with irregular darker markings in the 
centre, but lighter towards the tips. It would be difficult 
to confuse them with those of any other duck. (PI. L, 
Fig. 3.) 

SHOVELER (Spatula clypeata)—-This duck is probably 
far more common than is generally supposed, owing to 
the fact that numbers leave their breeding haunts after 
the young are able to fly. In some counties where they 
breed regularly I have never seen one in the shooting 
season. The nest is often placed on dry ground, some 
little distance from water, and they seem to show 


partiality for rough, rushy meadows. The eggs are 
distinctly greenish in colour, which at once separates them 
from those of the Wigeon, though the down closely 
resembles that of the latter, and except that it is slightly 
darker (probably varying in different individuals) I can 
find little difference. The feathers, however, are totally 
different, and render confusion between these two species 
impossible. The only British duck’s eggs which at all 
approach the Shoveler’s are certain varieties of the 
Pintail’s, but the Pintail’s down is larger and lighter, 
and the Shoveler’s feathers (especially the large ones) 
are quite distinct, as will be seen by reference to 
Plate I., Figs. 4, 4. This species breeds fairly early, 
half incubated eggs were found by me on May 8th. 
Wigeon seldom nest until the latter part of that month. 

Pintatu (Dafila acuta).—The fact of this bird breeding 
~ on Loch Leven is now unfortunately common knowledge : 
there is, or was, a considerable colony on one of the 
islands. I once counted thirteen nests, and there were 
probably more. A few also nest in a certain spot in 
Orkney, and it is said to have bred in Ireland. Its 
breeding range extends as far south as Andalusia, and I 
found a nest there (from which the female was procured) 
in May, 1902. ‘The eggs are generally described as green- 
ish in colour, and this is, no doubt, usually the case, but 
there is at least one other variety which is almost as 
creamy-coloured as the egg of the Wigeon, and without 
any trace of green. As far as I know, the shape, which is 
oval, remains constant. The eggs might be confused with 
those of the Long-tailed Duck, but that bird’s down 
is much darker, while its eggs are smaller, and the feathers 
are distinct, as will be seen by reference to the figures. 
The Pintail’s nests observed in Scotland were placed 
on dry ground, and one was in an exposed situation on 
burnt grass. In Spain and Hungary I have found them 
in damp places, one on a marsh quite surrounded by 
water. It is an early breeder, and full nests may be seen 
Pye May Sth. (Pl. I., Figs. 7, 7.) 


TEAL (Nettion crecca).—There is no difficulty about the 
identification of the eggs of this bird, as the only others 
that approach their small size are those of the Garganey. 
Teal’s eggs are, however, slightly smaller than those of 
the Garganey, and they have a greenish tinge entirely 
absent from the eggs of the latter species. The down of 
the Teal is also darker than that of its congener, and has 
no white tips. The feathers are of a light stone colour, 
with broad dark patches extending almost to the tip of 
the feather (Pl. I., Figs. 5, 5). 

GARGANEY (Querquedula circia).—-In this case the down 
alone is quite sufficient for identification ; it is smaller 
than that of the Teal, and very distinctly white tipped. 
The feathers are light grey, with dark central patches 
which do not extend either to the tip or edges of the 
feather (Pl. I., Figs. 6, 6). The eggs are creamy without 
the green tinge. The Garganey is probably the rarest of ° 
the ducks which breed regularly in this country. It 
nests in the Broad district, and according to Howard 
Saunders* has been found breeding in Yorkshire, and 
its eggs have recently been discovered in Kent. The 
only nest that has come under my personal observation 
was found on May 18th, in a field of rank grass not far 
from one of the Broads. It contained seven fresh eggs. 

Wicron (Mareca penelope).—Probably owing to pro- 
tection, and also to the numbers of these birds that are 
bred in semi-confinement and subsequently allowed their 
liberty, this bird has largely increased its breeding range. 
At one time confined to the North of Scotland, it has 
recently been known to nest in Perthshire, Dumfriesshire, 
and Yorkshire, whilst I have some evidence that eggs 
have been laid in Norfolk, and very young birds have 
been seen at Beaulieu, in Hants, during early August. 
It has not yet been known to breed in Ireland, and the 
statement to the contrary has been proved incorrect. 
Eggs are seldom laid before the latter part of May. The 
nest is often placed in heather some distance from water 

* “Til, Man, Brit. Birds,” 2nd Ed., p. 435. 


but frequently on an island. The eggs are cream- 
coloured, the down is dark, with no particular charac- 
teristic, but the feathers are unmistakable, being white 
sometimes with grey centres, which spread to the top of 
the web (PI. I., Figs. 8, 8). The down of the American 
Wigeon is much darker, and the centres not so distinct. 
Common PocHarp (Fuligula ferina)—The down: of 
this bird is large and exceedingly soft to the touch; the 
egos are of a dirty greenish colour, and might easily be 
mistaken for those of the Scaup, or the Tufted Duck, 
although they are usually larger than the former, and 
considerably larger than the latter. Nests I have seen 
in Scotland were placed in thick dead rushes on or close 
to the edge of a loch, and they might almost have been 
mistaken for Coots’ nests, for in two instances there was 
not a particle of down present, although the eggs were 
on the point of hatching.* In Spain we noticed a nest 
in the middle of a swamp, thickly lined with down, which 
was damp at the bottom. In the North, incubation com- 
mences about the middle of May. The feathers found 
in the nests are rather large and brownish in colour, 
slightly streaked from the centre upwards, and often 
tipped for a quarter of an inch with grey (PI. I., Figs. 9, 9). 


Figs. Feathers from Where When By whom 
Nest of. taken. taken. taken. 
1 Sheld-duck .. Norfolk .. 3.6.1903 .. H. Noble. 
aie Mallard fw wberkshire 3. .Sb.a L901} 2, a 
3 Gadwall see Noriole” v2, 2a: 1901. ... ts 
4,4 Shoveler aa, NOrhollic -)-... 8.5.1897 
550 Teal er eOrtoule!! \ 8.5.1897 
6, 6 Garganey oe Orrolie Ns. Yr Lb ES99 
via Pintail sy Scotland. 2.) 18tsck899 
8, 8 Wigeon t= scotland...:. -26.5.1896 .. _ 
9, 9 Pochard ee” COLAING of. = “ae LOO os a 

* Since the above was written, I have had particulars of seven more 
nests placed in thick rushes, in which no down was present. I have 
several times noticed that Mallards’ nests have no down when placed 
in such positions. I should be very glad to know the experience of 
other readers of BritisH Brrps on this point. 

(To be continued.) 

(ome 9 



PAnr 2 
(Continued from Vol. T., page 350.) 

FLAMINGO Phenicopterus roseus Pall. S. page 395. 

[On November 22nd, 1902, a Flamingo was shot on the 
Wash ; on November 5th, 1904, another was seen in Norfolk ; 
and in August, 1906, three were shot in the same county. In 
December, 1904, one was killed in Kent; but so many have 
been turned out at Woburn with only cut wings (cf. Vol. I., p. 
91),and probably at other places, that we cannot regard these 
as genuine migrants. 

We must here record our emphatic opinion that it is con- 
trary to the interests of scientific ornithology to turn out birds 
of species which visit us or may be likely to visit us as 
genuine migrants. | 

GREY LAG-GOOSE Anser cinereus Meyer. S. page 397. 

ScotLanp.—A young bird still unable to fly was obtained 
in the Tay area in the autumn of 1906, and the bird was 
considered to have been bred in the district (T. G. Laidlaw, Ann. 
Scot. Nat. Hist., 1906, p. 237). Mr. Harvie-Brown records a 
decided increase in the numbers of this species in many parts 
of Scotland, and a distinct expansion of range to certain new 
haunts (Fauna N. W. Highlands and Skye, p. 221). 

A bird received from Limerick November 23rd, 1901, has 
been assigned by Mr. F. Coburn (cf. Bull. B.O.C., XII., p. 80, 
and Zool., 1903, p. 46) to the supposed distinct eastern form 
which was separated by Hodgson under the name of Anser 
rubrirostris. Mons. 8. Alpheraky, who examined a very 

* As was explained in the first instalment of these articles (vide 
BritisH Birps, Vol. I., p. 52), we refer here only to those records and 
observations which are additions to the Second Edition (1899) of 
Saunders’ ‘ Illustrated Manual of British Birds.”’ It must also be 
pointed out that nothing which has already appeared in any part of 
this magazine is included in these articles, so that they must be read 
in conjunction with the magazine so far as published, as well as with 
Saunders’ ‘* Manual.” 


large series of this goose, does not, however, admit the 
validity of this bird even as a geographical form (cf. Geese 
of Europe and Asia, p. 29), and Mr. Coburn’s arguments seem 
to be set aside by the proofs of great variability in size and 
colouring brought forward by M. Alpheraky. 

WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE Anser albifrons (Scop.). 
S. page 399. 

There has been a great deal of discussion during the last 
few years as to the validity of Anser gambeli of Hartlaub, 
the American representative of the White-fronted Goose 
(epee. HH. Gurney,.fb1s, 1902, p:- 269 e¢ seg.; F.“Coburn, 
Zool., 1902, p. 337; H. W. Robinson, t.c., 1903, p. 268; J. 
A. Harvie-Brown, t.c., p. 315, and 8. Alpheraky, Geese of 
Europe, etc., p. 45, etc.). Mr. Coburn thinks, with some 
former authors, that the bird is distinct, and that specimens 
which he says he received from Ireland belong to it; M. 
Alpheraky, on the other hand, unites the bird with A. albifrons. 
It must be pointed out that specific characters founded on 
specimens obtained outside the breeding area of the bird 
are really of little value. The White-fronted Goose is 
without question a variable species, and whether it can be 
separated into geographical races or not, can only be 
determined by a careful comparison of a large series of 
specimens obtained within one breeding area, with a corre- 
sponding series obtained in another breeding area. 

LESSER WHITE-FRONTED GOOSE Anser erythropus (L.). 
S. page 400 (also cf. B.B., Vol. I., p. 14). 

NorroLtk.—An adult female was shot near King’s Lynn 
on January 24th, 1900, and sent to Mr. F. Coburn (cf. F. 
Bopucn, 200. a 100l wn aly, ¢ ull. BOWC., XI1., p. 15’; 
J. H. Gurney, Jbis, 1902, p. 269, etc.). 

Yorxs.—A male in the collection of the late Sir H. 
Boynton was said to have been taken near York (T. H. 
Nelson, B. of Yorks., p. 413). 

BEAN-GOOSE Anser segetum (J. F.Gm.). 8S. page 401. 

OvuTER HEBRIDES.—One was shot and two others were seen 
in South Uist in March, 1903 (J. A. Harvie-Brown, Ann. 
Scot. Nat. Hist., 1903, p. 119). The “ Manual” says that its 
reported occurrence in the Outer Hebrides requires con- 

M. Alpheraky’s separation (op. cit.) of the Anser arvensis 
of Brehm from the A. segetum of Gmelin is supported by a 
considerable amount of evidence. The chief characters 
lie in the bill, that of A. arvensis being “longer and com- 


paratively broader at the point, and far more depressed 
behind the nail of the upper mandible (than that of A. 
segetum). At the same time the lower mandible in WM. 
arvensis is less curved and comparatively less depressed in 
the thickest part (looking at the shut bill from the side) than 
in M. segetum. The nail is considerably shorter, but at the 
same time also broader and more rounded, both longitudinally 
and transversely.” The colours of the bills of the two birds 
are also different, but they do not seem to form a safe guide 
owing to their variability. We have quoted the above passage 
at length because Mr. F. W. Frohawk affirms that this goose 
is the usual form of the Bean-Goose to be found in this country, 
and that the true A. segetum is rare (cf. Field, 1902, p. 605 ; 
Zool., 1903, p. 41). Mr. Einar Lonnberg in discussing the 
question is inclined to think that variability accounts for the 
differences, and that there are not two distinct species (Zool., 
1903, p. 164). 

Mr. Frohawk considers (Zool., 1903, p. 42, etc.) that the 
bird shot at St. Abb’s Head on February 25th, 1896, and 
described by Mr. F. Coburn at length in the “ Zoologist ” 
(1902, pp. 441-448), as Anser paludosus of Strickland, is 
referable to A. arvensis. Mr. Coburn laid stress on the great 
length of the neck of the bird he described, but the specimen 
being a stuffed one no reliance can be placed on this feature. 

The distribution of A. arvensis and A. segetum is in- 
completely known, but according to M. Alpheraky A. arvensis 
is far more numerous than A. segetuwm, and the “ region of its 
nidification is larger both in longitude and latitude.” 

Another species of Bean-Goose, viz., the Anser neglectus 
of Sushkin (cf. bis, 1897, p. 5) from Novaya Zemlia and 
Kolguev, is suspected by M. Alpheraky (op. cit., p. 81), and 
by Mr. Frohawk (Field, 1902, p. 1045) to occur in Great Britain. 

Many diverse opinions have been expressed as to the specific 
differences of these Geese and their occurrence in this country, 
and it appears to us that before a definite decision can be 
reached more observations and examination of larger material 
must be made. | 

These birds undoubtedly vary greatly individually both in 
size and coloration; moreover, they are usually shot by 
sportsmen rather than naturalists, and consequently it is 
difficult to get together a good series with careful notes as to the 
colouring of the soft parts, which has, perhaps unfortunately, 
been used as a character for the separation of the species. 
Thus a bird, which the editor declared to be a Pink-footed 
Goose (Anser brachyrhyncus), was sent to the ‘“ Field’ from 
Breconshire this year, and this specimen had yellow legs and 


feet (cf. Field, 1908, p. 182, 410). On this point M. Alpheraky 
(op. cit., p. 89) remarks that he can find but one record of such 
an occurrence in the wild bird (Payne-Gallwey, Letters to 
Young Shooters, 3rd Series, p. 69), although it has been recorded 
that Pink-footed Geese bred in captivity sometimes have both 
the bill and the feet yellow. 

SNOW-GOOSE Chen hyperboreus (Pall.). S. page 405. 

IRELAND.—A female in excellent plumage. was shot in 
co. Longford on October 28th, 1903. It was in company 
with another bird, also shot, but not preserved, which was 
described as “dark in the plumage,” and may have been a 
young bird of the same species (Williams and Son, Zool., 1903, 
p. 459). Four were observed flying overhead within forty 
yards at Foxford, co. Mayo, on December Ist, 1903 (G. F. 
Knox, Irish Nat., 1904, p. 76, and R. Warren, Zool., 1904, 
p- 32). On December 30th, 1906, Captain Kirkwood saw a 
flock of fourteen (four white adults and ten greyish-coloured 
birds) at Bartragh, co. Mayo (R. Warren, t.c., 1907, p. 72). 

GREATER SNOW-GOOSE Chen nivalis Forster. 
(cf. S. page 406.) 

This form, which is only to be distinguished from the fore- 
going species by its larger size, inhabits Arctic America, 
whereas the smaller bird is apparently confined, as a breeding 
species, to eastern Siberia and the western shores of Arctic 
America (cf. Alpheraky, op. cit., p. 15). A specimen of this 
bird was shot near Belmullet, co. Mayo (? date), and was 
exhibited by Dr. R. B. Sharpe on behalf of Mr. R. J. Ussher 
at the November, 1899 meeting of the Brit. Orn. Club (Bull. 
BO 5, OX. KV.) 

BRENT GOOSE Bernicla brenta (Pall.). S. page 411. 

An adult female of the American Black Brent (B. 
_ nigricans) is said by Mr. F. Coburn to have been shot by a 
wildfowler, named Richardson, in the Wash “deeps” 
(Norfolk), on January 15th, 1907, and sent to him (cf. J. H. 
Gurney, Zool., 1908, pp. 121 and 123 and Plate). Mr. Coburn 
informs Mr. Gurney that a male of the same species was shot 
by the same wildfowler near Lynn and sent to him on 
February 14th, 1902. If the occurrence of a bird new to 
the British list is to be accepted as authentic, it is far more 
satisfactory wherever possible that it should be examined 
in the flesh by two or more ornithologists, and recorded at 
the time, than that it should be recorded for the first time 
months and even years after it was obtained. 
(To be continued.) 


An Aquatic Warbler (Acrocephalus aquaticus) was killed at 
the Eddystone Lighthouse, off Cornwall, on October 11th, 
1907, and a wing sent for identification. 

C. B. TickEHuRST. 


Ir may be worth while to record that a specimen of the White 
Wagtail (Motacilla alba) was killed at the Eddystone Light, 
off Cornwall, on October 11th, 1906, and a wing sent for 

identification. C. B. TIcEHURST. 


In August, or early in September, 1907, a specimen of the 
Blue-headed Wagtail (Motacilla flava) was shot near 
Nottingham. The bird was seen at Rose’s, the taxidermist, 
of Nottingham, by Mr. J. Musters, who had it sent to me, as 
he felt sure it was a Blue-headed Wagtail. Mr. G. Millais 
and Mr. H. E. Dresser have also examined it and pronounced 
it to be a specimen of M. flava. 1. Wane 

[This bird was shown to Dr. C. B. Ticehurst and myself 
by Mr. Dresser, and as it has been suggested that the bird must 
have been bred near the place of its capture it is as well to 
point out that the plumage of the bird affords no proof that 
this was so. Had it been in the pipit-like juvenile plumage 
of the species, it might have been well said that the bird had 
been bred near by, for this plumage is retained but a very 
short time after the young has left the nest. But the specimen 
in question was already in its first winter plumage, and was 
therefore perfectly capable of flying from the Continent, or 
elsewhere.—H. F. W.] 


I NoTICE in last month’s BritisH Brirps (Vol. IL. p. 388) 
a note to the effect that a Nutcracker was shot “in Kent” 
on December 29th, 1907. It would be interesting to know 
in what part of Kent this bird met its death, inasmuch as a 
Nutcracker escaped from my aviaries on December 26th, 
1907, three days previous to the time when the bird recorded 
was. shot. This house is about five miles from the Kentish 

NO'TES. 29 

border, so that it is not unlikely that the example was my 
bird. It was in perfect plumage when it escaped. I believe 
it wasa male. It was very tame, and would feed from hand. 



Many are the records of the occurrence of this bird in England, 
but it has been clearly shown that even the apparently best 
authenticated instances are untenable. This is only what 
might be expected of a bird which, although of strong flight, 
is strictly an inhabitant of the pine forests ‘‘ from the Arctic 
Circle to Spain,” and is a most unlikely species to wander 
far from its natural habitat, while the localities in this country 
which are suitable to its habits are very restricted. But, on the 
other hand, some of the more recent records are so precise, 
and the bird itself is so remarkable in appearance, that they 
cannot be dismissed offhand. This particularly applies to 
the numerous reports of its appearance on the borders of 
Norfolk and Suffolk, in the neighbourhood of Thetford, 
Brandon, and Euston, perhaps the most suitable locality 
that could be found for it in East Anglia. 

The Rev. E. T. Daubeny, in recording several instances 
of the supposed occurrence of this bird in Euston Park, 
Ixworth, and Brandon, in 1897, remarked that it was ‘‘ well- 
known that Lord Lilford liberated some of these birds towards 
the end of the last century,” but I could obtain no confir- 
mation of this, and so the matter stood till the year 1903, 
when, much to my surprise, my friend, Mr. W. H. Tuck, 
then living at Tostock, now at Bury St. Edmunds, informed 
me that a friend of his, whose name he was not at liberty to 
mention, brought seven or eight young Great Black Wood- 
peckers from Sweden in the year 1897. These were seen by 
Mr. Tuck, who further stated that they were placed in an 
aviary near Brandon for about two months, after which they 
were allowed to regain their liberty. This fact will, doubtless, 
account for the presence of the birds reported to have been 
seen in that neighbourhood, and perhaps for others which 
may have wandered further afield. 

Mr. Tuck was requested not to mention this fact for a 
specified period, which accounts for his silence till 1903, but 
he quite agrees with the writer that it is most reprehensible 
that birds or insects should be thus secretly introduced to 
the disturbance of the British fauna. 




A GoopLy number of these very interesting birds came to 
some young coverts at Rainworth in November last. There 
are two newly-planted pieces, one forty-six acres, the other 
twenty-seven. There were about eight birds in each, and we 

Nest and eggs of Short-eared Owl found at 
Rainworth, Notts., May Ist, 1908. 

(Photographed by H. E. Forrest.) 

saw them when shooting, and in February I saw four or five. 
About the middle of March I again saw one in each wood, 
and on April 21st one in the smaller covert. I now thought 
they would nest, so on Saturday, May 2nd, I tied a hand- 

NOTES. 51 

kerchief on the end of a 20-ft. salmon rod and went to the planta- 
tion. I started where the trees are thinly planted, and where 
there is much white grass, and waving my flag over the plants I 
walked down the side of the piece, and soon flushed a Short- 
eared Owl, which flew into a big tree and watched me. When 
I got near him he flew round, and settled in a big ash 
near where I started to beat. I find the male is slimmer and 
lighter in plumage than the female. I turned and took a piece 
back, and when I turned again for a third beat he left the tree 
and came circling round over my head, calling “ Keii, keil.” 
When I had gone about twenty yards further another Owl rose 
about three yards to my left, and on looking I found a nest 
at the foot of a small Scotch fir with eight eggs upon a thickish 
bed of dry grasses. The eggs were not in a cluster, but rather 
scattered. The nest was nine inches each way and two-and-a- 
half inches thick. I need hardly say that I was full of delight, 
for I had never seen the nest and eggs of this bird before, and 

they are the first ever found in this county. J. WHITAKER 


On April 22nd, off Bolt Head, and at the entrance of the 
creek running past Salcombe up to Kingsbridge, South Devon, 
I noticed a small flock of Eider Ducks (Somateria mollissima). 
Their presence so far south at this time of year seems rather 
remarkable. The explanation may be the extraordinary 
weather we have just been experiencing, of which the birds 
were the forerunners, as the snow followed next day. The 
wind had been in the east and north-east, but changed that 
day to north-west. Keay. Sree. 


Wir reference to the Rev. F. L. Blathwayt’s note on the 
nesting of the Stock-Dove (C. enas) on Lincoln Minster, it 
may be of interest to record that during the latter part of 
March, 1907, I frequently heard a Stock-Dove cooing in the 
Close at Winchester; and on April 1st I watched a pair of 
these birds flying about the Cathedral, and twice saw one of 
them enter a hole in the masonry, high up on the Cathedral wall. 

In my experience the Stock-Dove is a bird which has of 
late years become commoner in many localities, and perhaps 
it is developing that taste for “‘ town life’? which 1s now so 
noticeable in the Wood-Pigeon. Teese 

[We think it will be found that Stock-Doves frequently 
nest on buildings.—EDs. | 



A Spotrep CRAKE (Porzana maruetta) was captured at the 
Royal Sovereign Lightship on May 8th, 1906, and a wing sent 
for identification. 


A sAnpy stretch of the shore of Marbury Mere, near North- 
wich, Cheshire, is a favourite halting place of passing migratory 
waders and of wanderers from the neighbouring Mersey 
Estuary, and on many occasions I have seen there small 
mixed parties of Dunlins and Ringed Plovers. On April 29th, 
1908, I put up eight birds from the edge of the mere; six of 
these were Dunlins in summer dress, and the other two, at 
first sight, looked like small pale Ringed Plovers. There was, 
however, something in the flight or appearance of the birds 
which specially attracted my attention ; I was sure they were 
strangers. After a short flight over the water the birds 
returned to the bank, where they settled and allowed me to 
approach to within a dozen yards. I then saw that the 
Plovers lacked the complete pectoral band of A‘gialitis hiaticola 
or Al. curonica, that they were lighter in colour, and were 
distinctly smaller than the former, for I was able to compare 
their size with that.of the Dunlins. The birds were, I con- 
cluded, a male and female. The male had a short black band 
above his white forehead, black lores and ear-coverts. and a 
black patch in front of the wing below the white collar. In 
the female these black regions, with the exception of the 
lores, were a dark brown. The rest of the plumage was sandy- 
grey on the upper part, the female being noticeably paler 
than the male. The bill and legs of both were black, or so 
dark that they appeared black even at close quarters and in 
an excellent light. The black patches on the aural regions and 
sides of the neck did not cover quite so large an area as is 
represented in the figure in Yarrell’s ‘ British Birds” (4th 
Edition, Vol. III., p. 267). In both birds the collar, forehead, 
stripe above the eye, and underparts were white. In spite of 
the fact that the Plovers were slightly smaller than the 
Duniins, they stood a little higher on their legs. I watched 
them for nearly three hours, making rough sketches of them 
and noting down the details of plumage, and was perfectly 
satisfied that they were Kentish Plovers (4g:alitis cantiana), 
an addition to the Cheshire avifauna. 

In the West of England this species has only hitherto been 
recorded from Devon and Cornwall, but it has been met with 
further north than Cheshire on the East Coast. The birds 

NOTES. 33 

were not noticed by the gamekeeper when he made his rounds. 
on the 28th, but he saw them on the 30th. On May Ist and 
2nd, when I visited the mere again, I could not find them, and 
a large number of passing migrants of other species, which I 
saw on April 29th—including many Common Sandpipers, five 
Common Terns, two White Wagtails, many Yellow Wagtails, 
and the six Dunlins—had also disappeared. 

T. A. Cowarp. 


Aw example of the Purple Sandpiper (7'ringa striata) struck 
Hanois Light, Channel Islands, and a wing was sent for 
identification on November 15th, 1906. This species, no 
doubt, has been overlooked in these islands (whose orni- 
thology is very incompletely known), and is not mentioned in 
Smith’s “‘ Birds of the Channel Islands.” 

C. B. TicEHurst. 


In the spring of last year a pair of Redshanks (T'otanus 
calidris)—locally called ‘‘ Whistling Plovers’’—nested in a boggy 
field in the district of Hampton-in-Arden. Four chicks were 
hatched, one of which was by some means killed; the other 
three left with their parents in the autumn. 

This spring, about the beginning of March, three birds, a 
cock and two hens, returned, and two nests were made near 
the previous one. Judging by the pieces of eggshell lying 
near the nest it would appear that in one case the four chicks 
have been successfully hatched; if this is the case they 
emerged about April 27th. It is doubtful whether the young 
birds have survived the floods, not being yet of an age to fly. 
One egg, which proved to be addled, was taken from the 
second nest by the gamekeeper, and I think it very probable 
that the others are infertile, since there appears to be only one 
cock bird. 

Last year Redshanks were recorded for the first time as 
breeding in Warwickshire (vide B.B., Vol. I., pp. 158 and 
191), Oxford, eighty miles away, being, so far as I know, the 
nearest place where they had previously been seen. 

A. G. Lien. 


On April 29th, 1908, I watched a small party of Terns on 
Marbury Mere, near Northwich, which consisted of five 


Common and one adult male Black Tern (Hydrochelidon 
nigra). They were, together with half a dozen or more 
Black-headed Gulls, feeding on insects which were flying 
above the surface of the mere. The Common Terns repeatedly 
dived downwards towards the water but did not strike the 
surface ; they swooped upwards before they reached the water, 
evidently having captured their prey. The Black Tern flew 
with more graceful sweeps and curves, never half closing its 
wings and shooting downwards, and occasionally just touched 
the water with its bill as it passed, apparently picking some- 
thing from the surface. It repeatedly flew to and settled 
upon a stump which projects above water; when it was 
standing on the stump I could easily see the black head, and 
almost black throat, breast and belly, strongly contrasted 
with the white vent and slate back and wings. On May Ist, 
when I next visited the mere, I could see neither the Common 
nor the Black Tern, but on the 2nd I found that there were 
two mature Black Terns, one, probably a female, being 
noticeably lighter on the underparts. 

Black Terns are occasional visitors to Cheshire on both 
spring and autumn migration. In June, 1900, three birds 
were seen by Messrs. F. S. Graves and P. Ralfe, and in 
September, 1903, Mr. C. Oldham and I saw one, and in August, 
1905, two birds on this mere. 

T. A. CowaRD. 


Mr. J. H. Gurney contributes to the “ Zoologist ” for April 
his usual interesting annual report on the ornithology of 
Norfolk. The most notable events to which reference has 
not previously been made in our pages were as follow :— 

DrseRT WHEATEAR (Saxicola deserti)—A male was shot 
“near the sea”’ on October 3lst. This is only the second 
recorded occurrence of this southern bird in England, although, 
curiously enough, three have been obtained in Scotland. 

FIRE-CRESTED WREN (Regulus ignicapillus)—One was 
caught in the town of Yarmouth on October 31st. 

YELLOW-BROWED WARBLER (Phylloscopus swperciliosus).— 
One was shot at Cley on October 29th. This is its second 
occurrence in Norfolk. 

RED-BREASTED FLYCATCHER (Muscicapa parva).—One was 
identified (not very satisfactorily) by Mr. E. C. Arnold on the 
coast on September 11th, and another was identified by 
another observer on October 29th. 

ROSE-COLOURED STARLING (Pastor roseus)—One at 
Toftrees in April. 

NOTES. 35 

Nutcracker (Nucifraga caryocatactes)—One was seen at 
Gunton, near Lowestoft, on November 28th and 30th. 

BaRn-ow. (Strix flammea).—Mr. Gurney has a good deal 
to say about the luminous Barn-owls. There is, however, 
no information as to what causes the luminosity which is the 
point of real scientific interest, and curiously enough Mr. 
Gurney thinks it would be a reprehensible deed to shoot one 
of the birds, although this is obviously the best way of clearing 
up the mystery. It would certainly do no harm, and might 
advance scientific knowledge. The chief points of interest 
in Mr. Gurney’s notes on the subject, are that the evidence that 
Barn-owls occasionally exhibit luminosity is incontrovertible, 
-and that the “light ” emitted is very much stronger than one 
would imagine possible. 

PureLe Heron (Ardea purpurea)—A young bird was 
captured in the streets of Kirkley, a suburb of Lowestoft, 
by a tram conductor on October 9th. 

SpoonBILL (Platalea leucorodia).—The first seen on Breydon 
was on April 2lst, and several were subsequently seen at 
intervals in May and June, and the last on August 6th. Two 
“‘ very”? young ones were noted on June 4th. None appear 
to have been shot, we are glad to say. 

In volume I. of this Magazine several communications were 
published on this subject. The advantage to students of 
migration of knowing exactly where birds travel by observa- 
tions on marked birds is obvious; but the difficulty of the 
plan is that so few birds which are marked are ever found 
again. If, however, great numbers were marked, no doubt 
a large enough percentage would turn up to make the results 
of value. Mr. C. Hawkins, of ‘“‘ Lyndhurst,” Woodside Road, 
South Norwood, informs us that he has had made a number 
of suitable aluminium rings of various sizes, stamped with a 
registered address (‘‘ Avis, Wye, Kent”), and each bearing a 
separate number for identification purposes. He is willing to 
supply these rings to anyone who will undertake to place them 
on birds, at the price of 5s. per gross, or 6d. per dozen. Mr. 
Hawkins also undertakes to keep a register of the particulars 
supplied by his correspondents concerning the birds marked, 
and to publish the results from time to time. H.F.W 

On the same lines as Herr Chr. Mortensen, of Viborg (wde 
British Birds, Vol. I., page 298), I have this year been 
marking and liberating a number of birds of various species. 
The mark employed is an aluminium ring on which is stamped 


‘ Ticehurst, Tenterden,” and a register number, and the ring is. 
put round one of the legs. Should any of my birds be met 
with by any readers of BrrrisH Birps will they kindly return 
the ring and the leg to me, stating the locality and the date 

of capture ? 
P C. B. TickuHurst, 

Hurstbourne, Tenterden, Kent. 
% * * 

A TIMETABLE OF Birp Sone.—Mr. W. Gyngell, in a short 
article (Nat., 1908, pp. 181-4) gives the result of his observations. 
on the duration of the song of thirty-six species of birds in 
the Scarborough district. The results are shown by means of 
a table of curves, which, however convenient, does not give 
sufficient detail to make the observations as valuable as they 
might have been. Comparing this table with the Messrs. 
Alexander’s observations lately published in this magazine 
(cf. Vol. I., pp. 367-372) it is interesting to note that Mr. 
Gyngell generally records a shorter song-period for resident 
birds in Scarborough than Messrs. Alexander in Kent and 
Sussex. Summer migrants appear to sing later in the north 
than they do in the south. According to Mr. Gyngell, also 
most of the resident birds make a considerable break in their 
song in the autumn, whereas Messrs. Alexander record 
occasional singing at this period. 

SHORT-EARED OWLS IN THE IsLtE oF Man.—In connection 
with Mr. W. J. Williams’ note (ante Vol. I., p. 358) with regard 
to the influx of Short-eared Owls (Asio accipitrinus) into 
Ireland in the autumn of 1907, it is interesting to note that the 
bird was common in the Isle of Man in the same season, nearly 
a dozen being put up in one turnip field (cf. P. G. Ralfe, 
Nat., 1908, p. 169). 

Honey-Buzzarp IN NortH Watzs.—Mr. C. D. Head 
records that he has a male Pernis apivorus shot at Abergele 
on October 15th, 1907 (Zool., 1908, p. 156). 

BITTERNS IN HAmpsHirRE.—Mr. C. B. Corbin notes that 
two or three examples of Botaurus stellaris frequented the 
reed-beds of the Avon in the last winter (Zool., 1908, p. 157). 

SUPPOSED SPOONBILL IN co. Limerick.—Mr. H. G. O. 
Bridgeman writes that a local farmer near Foynes described 
a bird which he had shot on the estuary of the Shannon in 
the frost of 1905 as being “all white, and had legs long like 
the crane (i.e., Heron), and had a bill what got bigger as it 
got out, and flat like” (Irish Nat., 1908, p. 101). We can 
but agree with Mr. Bridgeman that this sounds like a very 
honest, if quaint, description of Platalea leucorodia. 


the Fee 
| elk 

Me ‘ff mele: te 


A Work on this subject, illustrated with BEAUTIFULLY | 

. COLOURED PLATES, is now being issued. 

- Write for Full Prospectus and a Part ‘ar inspection to 
1%, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 

Naturalists’ Camera, 
y 1907, MODEL, 
Fo: Telephoto or Ordinary LENSES. 
Lenses are used 
—_ by the most 
ie skilled Bird 

The following are 
spectally recommended : 

THE STIGMATIC SERIES J. F/6 (Convertible.) 

(A Rapid Long Focus Leus at a Moderate Price.) 

High or Moderate Power Telephoto Lenses (Original Make). 
We are Specialists in Cameras and A lpparatus for. Photo- secon 

J. H. DALLMEYER, Limitep, bdENzIL RD., 

Showrooms: 25, NEWMAN ca W. NEASDEN. AAHOUK, NW. 


- Waturalists, 

And Manufacturers of CABINETS and APPARATUS for Enbaotse gy, Birds? Ege | 

and Skins, and. all Branches of Natural History. 

Speciality: :—Obiects for Nature Study, ‘Drawing Classes, &c, : 


All Books and Publications. on Natural . History supplied. 

36, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. (Five Doors from ane Gros.) Vee. 

Scand (102 pp-) post free. 

4 OMe A" see My py ee 



fe Poa” 



ny . * nN 


By ae y 

fl r 



‘. a 


ak Sing 


a ee Le | 

~~ @ "4 

BRITISH BIRDS, Vol. II., Pl. 2. 


Nat. size. 

(Reproduced direct from the feathers.) (For explanation see p. 41.) 

RED-THROATED DIVER: “She waddled to the Nest.” 
(From one of Mr. Bahr’s Photographs.) 

To Messrs. WILHERBY & CO., 326, High Holborn, London, 

Mie tr tual Os Cae Phir fe Wl) Pe RR ek 

Pleaseusendwime ee i eo (EO Pe creas. of “HE 

Meicloceree ee re 

Profusely illustrated. Price 2s. 6d. net. 







P. H. BAHR, B.A., M.B.O.U. 






NATURE says: ‘They have set themselves the task of portraying 
Marsh-Birds in positions and attitudes which will render the pictures of real 
service to the scientific ornithologist; and we venture to think that the 
verdict of their readers will be a pronouncement of unqualified success in 
this respect. The book does not, however, depend entirely on_ its 
illustrations. . . . the reader will find much of interest in ‘the brightly 
written biographies which accompany the text.” 




CoNTENTS OF NUMBER 2, Vou. II. Jury 1, 1908. 

On the Identification of Ducks’ Eggs, by Heatley sky 
M.B.0.U. (Plate IT.), (continwed trom page 23 

Some Early British Ornithologists and their Works, by 
W. H. Mullens, M.a., Lu.M., M.B.o.U. II.—Richard 
Carew ; Bs “ns , a 

On the More Important Additions to our Beings of 
British Birds since 1899, by H. F. Witherby and N. F. 
Ticehurst. Part XI. (continwed from page 27) .. 

Notes :—The Nest and Nestlings of the Bearded Tit (W. P. 
Pycraft). Nuthatches Breeding at Llandudno (H. E. 
Forrest). Golden Oriole in Shropshire (H. E. Forrest). 
Woodchat in Cheshire (J. M. St. John Yates). Hoopoe in 
Shropshire (H. E. Forrest). Short-eared Owl Breeding 
in Pembrokeshire (H. E. Forrest). Supposed Wild 
Swans on Coll (Heatley Noble). Inland Nesting of the 
Sheld-Duck (T. Southwell). Want of Down in Mallard’s 
Nests (M. Winzar Compton). Common Crane in Anglesey 
(Alfred Newstead, Curator). Common Terns on the 
Holyhead Skerries (Heatley Noble). Abnormal Eggs 
of Black-Headed Gull (Herbert Trevelyan). Incubation 
Periods in Sea-Birds (H. F. W.), etc. : : 

Review :—The British Warblers—A rae with Problems 
of their Lives 



(Prat IT.) 

(Continued from page 23.) 






TurrteD Duck (f’. cristata).—This species breeds in 

June, and is very numerous in certain localities. 

On one 

ErratumM.—lIn the first instalment of this article (ante p. 19, line 10 

from the bottom) Wolferton was printed Wolverton. 


island in a northern loch I once counted nearly one 
hundred nests, containing from seven to fourteen eggs 
apiece, the average number being nine (June 12th). 
Incubation lasts twenty-three days, as proved by eggs 
placed under a hen. The eggs are smaller than those of 
the Pochard, or Scaup, and slightly lighter in colour ; 
the down is dark and compact, without conspicuously 
light centres; the feathers are greyish-white, and very 
small (Plate II., Figs. 11, 11). 

Scaup-Duck (fF. marila).—On June 14th, 1899, Captain 
Sandeman and I were fortunate enough to find the 
first authentic nest of this species in Scotland.* I believe 
another nest was found last year in the Hebrides by a 
competent ornithologist, who, I fancy, was satisfied with 
the identification. We have often been blamed for not 
procuring the female from our nest, but this course seemed 
to me quite unnecessary, for we had watched the birds 
(two females and a male) for days, and saw the bird both 
going to and coming from the nest as we lay in the reeds 
within a few yards. I had kept these birds in confine- 
ment, and they were so well-known to me that mistaken 
identification was impossible. The eggs are much the 
same colour as those of the Pochard, but slightly smaller. 
Those with which they are most likely to be confused are 
Tufted Ducks, but they are much larger; the down is 
lighter, with more conspicuous light centres, while the 
feathers are quite distinct, being larger, sometimes 
slightly speckled, especially towards the tip, and of 
different markings (Plate II., Figs. 10, 10). 

GOLDEN-EYE (Clangula glaucion).—This bird has not 
yet been proved to breed in the British Isles, but there is 
some evidence of its having done so, and on August Ist, 
1887, I shot a young bird in Scotland some considerable 
distance inland. The eggs when first laid are of a beautiful 
green, which unfortunately soon fades. For the loan of 
down and feathers I am indebted to Mr. P. C. Musters, 
who took the nest from a holein a pine tree in Norway, 

* See “Ann. Scot. Nat. Hist.,’’ 1899, p. 215. 


on June 19th, 1897. The down is white, as are also the 
feathers, and should the nest be discovered in Great 
Britain it could not be mistaken for that of any European 
duck, with the exception of Barrow’s Golden-eye C. 
islandica, which breeds in Iceland and Greenland, and 
has not yet been recorded as visiting this country 
(Plate IT., Fig. 14). 

LonG-TAILED Duck (Harelda glacialis).—-This is another 
species which has never been known to nest in this country, 
though it may have done so. The eggs are green, rather 
smaller than those of the Pintail, and more pointed. 
The down is dense, small, and “ Kider-like ” in texture, 
quite unlike that of D. acuta, which is the only duck with 
which it could be confused. It will also be seen that the 
feathers are very unlike (Plate II., Figs. 12, 12). 

ErpER Duck (Somateria mollissima).—These eggs 
could not be mistaken for those of any other British duck. 
Always green, but varying in shade, there is an 
* Eiderish ’”’ look about them which would prevent the 
possibility of error. Howard Saunders gives the number 
of eggs as from five to eight, but the latter number must 
be very rare, at least in our islands. I have examined 
numerous nests in’ Scotland, the Farne Islands, and 
Orkney, and only once noticed six eggs, far more often 
the female was sitting on four than five. The well-known 
down needs no description, but it may be mentioned here 
that the downs of the three “ British ”’ Eiders are very 
distinct. That of the Common Eider is light; of the 
King-Eider darker; and of Steller’s Eider darker still. 
The eggs also graduate in size, those of the Common 
Hider being the largest, the King-Eider smaller, and 
Steller’s Hider smallest (Plate IT., Figs. 13, 13). 

Common Scoter (Gdemia nigra).—This bird breeds 
quite commonly in Caithness and Sutherland, more rarely 
in Ross and Cromarty, and probably Inverness. It is, 
however, very local in distribution. It has nested in 
Ireland, and Mr. Ussher kindly sent me an egg, down, 
and young-in-down, for identification. The nests are 


difficult to find, being often well concealed in rank heather, 
and at some considerable distance from the loch side, 
while they are not infrequently on islands. A clutch taken 
in Sutherland on June 17th consisted of seven eggs, 
advanced in incubation. They were buffish-white in 
colour, the down almost black, and the feathers with no 
distinguishing marks, but the nest and eggs were un- 
mistakable (Plate II., Figs. 15, 15). 

VELVET ScoTER (. fusca).—-I spent six weeks in Nor- 
way in an unsuccessful endeavour to discover the nest of 
this species. Although plenty of birds were seen, it is 
doubtful if they were breeding in that particular year, 
and I was driven away by snow on July llth. There 
appears to be some evidence that a pair or two have bred 
in the Highlands of Scotland, but at present proof is 
wanting. The eggs are larger than those of the Common 
Scoter, and rather lighter in colour. The down is also 
lighter and larger. indebted to Mr. Witherby for 
the loan of a beautiful nest taken in Lapland, and to Mr. 
Ogilvie-Grant for the feathers depicted (Plate I1., 
Figs. 16, 16). 

GOOSANDER (Mergus merganser).—In certain parts of 
Scotland, especially the Garve district, this bird is not 
uncommon in the breeding season. Nesting much earlier 
than the Red-breasted Merganser, the Goosander has its 
clutch of from nine to twelve, or even fifteen, eggs, 
generally complete by the first week in May, and on the 
28th of that month I have found birds hatched a few 
days. Any kind of hole seems to suit the nesting require- 
ments of this duck. In the experience of the writer, 
nests have been found in holes in trees, clefts in rocks, 
and under peat hags. The eggs are creamy-white; the 
down is pearl-grey, and the feathers are white, with a 
tinge of yellow. The only other duck’s eggs like those of 
this species are the Sheld-duck’s, but the feathers in two 
nests are so different as to at once preclude the possibility 
of mistake (Plate II., Figs. 17, 17). 

RED-BREASTED MERGANSER (1. serrator)—Much more 


widely distributed than the last species, this bird breeds 
commonly on many rivers and lochs in Scotland, also on 
the sea coast in Ireland it is common, and in Orkney and 
the Hebrides numerous. The nest is well concealed, often 
in high heather, sometimes in dense reeds on an island, 
often in a rabbit-hole or cleft in a peat bank, but seldom 
far from water. The eggs, which number up to fifteen, 
and are not laid before the end of May, are stone-coloured, 
with just a greenish tinge, the down is dark grey (much 
darker than that of the Goosander), and the feathers 
(very much smaller than those of M. merganser) are quite 
white (Plate II., Fig. 18). 


Figs. Feathers from Where When By whom 
Nest of. taken. taken. taken. 
10, 10 .. Scaup-Duck . Scotland .. 14.6.1899 .. H. Noble. 
11,11 .. Tufted Duck . Scotland .. 12.6.1898 . Ae 
12, 12 .. Long-tailed 
Duck . Norway .. 4.6.1899 .. Ramperg. 
13, 13 .. Eider Duck . Scotland-.. 2.6.1896 .. H. Noble. 
14 . Golden-Eye .. Norway .. 19.6.1897 .. P. C. Musters. 
15,15 .. CommonScoter.. Scotland .. 17.6.1899 .. H. Noble. 
16,16 .. Velvet Scoter .. Petchora,.. 6.7.1875 .. H.Seebohmand 
Siberia. J. A. Harvie- 
17, 17 .. Goosander . Scotland .. 25.4.1903 .. H. Noble. 
18 . Merganser . Scotland .. 6.6.1896 .. na 

( 42) 



WwW. H. MULLENS, ™.a., 11.m., M:B.0.0- 


WILLIAM CAMDEN (1551-1623), the celebrated author 
of “ Britannia”? (London, 1586, 1 vol., 8vo), at the 
conclusion of the ‘‘ Account of Cornwall,’ contained in 
that work, wrote as follows :— 

“But these Matters will be laid open more distinctly 
and fully, by Richard Carew of Antonie, a Person no less 
eminent for his honourable Ancestors, than his own 
Virtue and Learning, who is writing a Description of this 
Country,* not in little but at large.” 

Carew’s work duly appeared in 1602, and was entitled 
“The Survey of Cornwall.” 

It was dedicated by its author to Sir Walter Raleigh, 
and in the dedication Carew describes his book as “ This 
mine ill-husbanded Survey, long since begun, a great 
while discontinued, lately reviewed, and now hastily 
finished . . . And in his preface to the reader he 
informs us that “‘ When [I first composed this Treatise, 
not minding that it should be published in Print, I caused 
onely certaine written copies to bee given to some of my 
friends, and put Prosopopeia into the bookes mouth. But 
since that time, master Camden’s often mentioning this 
work, and my friends perswasions, have caused my 
determination to alter ie 

* The original Latin word is “‘ regionis,”’ the translation is from James 
Woodman’s edition of Carew’s ‘‘ Survey of Cornwall.” 


Through this fortunate alteration of his original purpose 
we are indebted to Richard Carew for a book of peculiar 
and lasting interest. Not only is the “Survey of Cornwall”’ 
one of the earliest works to deal with the birds of a 
particular county, but it contains a far fuller and more 
important description of them than do many of the so- 
called County Natural Histories, afterwards published 
in this country. 

Carew’s observations on Cornish birds have frequently 
been quoted by later writers, and as the first edition of 
the “Survey of Cornwall” is an uncommon book, we 
propose to give them at length.* 

Our author begins his account of the birds on fol. 24 of 
the ‘“‘ Survey ”’ as follows :— 

‘‘ Among living things on the land, after beastes follow 
Birds, who seeke harbour on the earth at night, though 
the ayre bee the greatest place of their haunt by day. 

‘“Of tame Birds, Cornwall hath Doves, Geese, Ducks, 
Peacockes, Ginney Duckes, China geese, Barbarie hennes, 
and such like. 

“Of wild, Quaile, Raile, Partridge, Fesant, Plover, 
Snyte, Wood-dove, Heath cocke,t Powte, etc. 

‘“ But amongst all the rest, the Inhabitants are most 
beholden to the Woodcockes, who (when the season of 
the yeare affordeth) flocke to them in great aboundance. 
They arrive first on the North-coast, where almost everie 
hedge serveth for a Roade, and everie plashoote for 
Springles to take them. From whence as the moyst 
places which supplie them food beginne to freeze up, they 
draw towards those in the South Coast, which are kept 
more open by the Summers neerer neighbourhood : and 
when the Summers heate (with the same effect from a 
contrairie cause) drieth up those plashes, nature and 
necessitie guide their returne to the Northern wetter 
soyle again. 

* Cf. Harting’s edition of Rodd’s “ Birds of Cornwall,’’ Introduction, 
pp. Xiv.-xviii. 

+ z.e., the Black Grouse and its ‘‘ powte ”’ or young. 


‘“Of Hawkes there are Marlions, Sparhawkes, Hobbies, 
and somewhere Lannards.* As for the Sparhawke, 
though shee serve to flie little above sixe weekes in the 
yeere, and that only at the Partridge, where the Faulkner 
and Spanels must also now and then spare her extra- 
ordinarie assistance; yet both Cornish and Devonshire 
men employ so much travaile in seeking, watching, 
taking, manning, nusling, dieting, curing, bathing, carry- 
ing and mewing them, as it must needs proceede from a 
greater folly, that they cannot discerne their folly therein. 
To which you may add, their busie, dangerous, discourteous 
yea, and sometimes despiteful stealing one from another 
of the Egges and young ones, who if they were allowed 
to aire naturally and quietly, there would bee store 
sufficient to kill not onéely the Partridges but even all the 
good-huswives Chickens in a Countrie. 

‘Of singing Birds they have Lynnets, Goldfinches, 
Ruddockes,t Canarie birds, Black-birds, Thrushes, and 
divers other; but of Nightingals, few, or none at all, 
whether through some natural antipathie betweene them 
and the soyle (as Plinie writeth that Crete fostereth not 
any Owles, nor Rhodes Eagles, nor Larius Lacus in Italy 
Storkes) or rather for that the Country is generally bare 
of Covert and woods, which they affect, I leave to be 
discussed by others. 

“Not long sithence, there came a flock of Birds into 
Cornwall, about Harvest Season, in bignesse not much 
exceeding a Sparrow, which made a foule spoyle of the 
Apples. Their bils were thwarted crossewise at the end, 
and with these they would cut an Apple in two, at one 

* It seems doubtful whether the Lanner, Falco lanarius (cf. Newton, 
Dict. of Birds, p. 503) ever bred in this country. Turner makes no 
mention of it doing so, and though Merrett (Pinax Rerum London, 1666, 
1 vol., 12mo), gives it in his list of British birds as ‘“ Lanarius, the 
Lanar’”’ and states that it bred in various places in England, he was 
most probably referring to some other species of Falcon. Willughby 
also does not include it among the birds found in this country, on the 
other hand Symon Latham in his “ Falconry,” 1618, distinctly informs 
us that it did breed in England. (Book II., p. 112). 

+ 7.e., Robins. 


snap, eating onely the kernels. It was taken at first for 
a forboden token, and much admired, but, soone after, 
notice grew, that Glocestershire, and other apple Countries, 
have them an over-familiar harme. 

‘““In the West parts of Cornwall, during the Winter 
season, Swallowes are founde sitting in old deepe Tynne- 
workes, and holes of the sea cliffes: but touching their 
lurking places, Olaus Magnus* maketh a farre stranger 
report. For he saith, the North parts of the 
world, as Summer weareth out, they clap mouth to 
mouth, wing to wing and legge in legge, and so after 
a sweete singing, fall downe into certaine great lakes or 
pooles among the Canes, from whence at the next Spring 
they receive a new resurrection: and hee addeth for 
proof hereof, that the Fishermen, who makes holes in the 
Ice, to dip up such fish with their nets, as resort thither 
for breathing, doe sometimes light on these Swallowes, 
congealed in clods, of a slymie substance, and that 
carrying them home to their Stoves, the warmth restoreth 
them to life and flight: this I have seen confirmed also 
by the relation of a Venetian Ambassadour, employed 
in Poland, and heard avowed by travaylers in those 
parts: where-through I am induced to give it a place 
of probabilitie in my mind, and of report in this 

Dealing next in order with fresh and salt water and 
the fish thereof, Carew comes in due course to the 
‘‘ sea-foule,’’ of which he writes as follows :— 

‘* Besides these flooting [7.e. floating] burgesses of the 
Ocean, there are also certaine flying Citizens of the ayre, 
which prescribe for a corrodiet therein; of whom some 
serve for food to us, and some but to feed themselves. 
_ Amongst the first sort, we reckon the Dip-chicke (so named 
of his diving and littlenesse), Coots, Sanderlings, Sea-Larkes, 

* Olaus Magnus, Archbishop of Upsala, whose ‘‘ Historia de Gentibus 
Septentrionalibus ’’ (Romae, 1555, 1 Vol., folio) Carew here quotes. 

+ Corrodie—an allowance, or right of sustenance. M. L.—Corrodium 


Oxen and Kine,* Seapies,f Puffins, Pewets,{ Meawes, 
Murres,$ Creysers, Curlewes, Teal, Widgeon, Burranets,|| 
Shags, Ducke, and Mallard, Gull, Wild-goose, Heron, 
Crane, and Barnacle. These content not the stomacke, 
all with a like savorinesse, but some carry a rancke 
taste, and require a former mortification: and some are 
good to be eaten while they are young, but nothing 
tooth-some, as they grow elder. The Guls, Pewets, and 
most of the residue, breed in little desert Islands, border- 
ing on both Coastes, laying their Egges on the grasse, 
without making any nests, from whence the owner of 
the land causeth the young ones to be fetched about 
Whitsontide, for the first broode, and some weekes after 
for the second. Some one, but not everie such Rock may 
yeeld yeere-ly towards thirtie dozen of Guls. They are 
kept tame and fed fat, but none of the sea kind will breed 
out of their naturall place: yet at Caryhayes, Master 
Trevanion’s house, which bordereth on the Cliffe, an old 
gull did (with an extraordinarie Charitie) accustome, for 
divers yeares together, to come and feede the young ones 
(though perhaps none of his alliance) in the Court where 
they were kept. It is held that the Barnacle breedeth 
under water on such ships sides, as have been verie long 
at Sea, hanging there by the Bill, untill his full growth 
dismisse him to be a perfect fowle : and for proofs hereof, 
many little things like birds, are ordinarily found in such 

* Oxen-and-kine was, according to Swainson (Provincial Names of 
British Birds, p. 195), the name given to the Ruff and Reeve at the 
end of the sixteenth century. In the present: case, as Carew is here 

dealing with Sea-fowl, it probably means the “ Oxbird”’ or Dunlin 
(cf. Harting’s edition of Rodd’s Birds of Cornwall, p. 17). 

+ Oyster-catcher. 

t+ The Pewit Gull, Larus ridibundus (cf., Plot’s Natural History of 
Staffordshire, Oxford, 1686, p. 231). Willughby calls it the Pewit 
or Black-cap. 

§ Murre, the Cornish name of the Common Guillemot, also the 
Razorbill (cf., Swainson, p. 218). 

|| Probably the Shelldrake. The Shelldrake is called Burgander or 
Bergander (7.e., Burrow Gander) by Turner. Cf. also Charleton, 
Onomasticon Zoicon, London, 1668, 1 vol., folio, p. 98. ‘The 
Bergander or Burrow Duck.’ Willughby says the ‘ Shelldrake or 
Borough Duck. . . . it is called Burrow-duck from building in Coney, 
Burrows ”’ (The Ornithology, p i 28), 


places, but I cannot heare any man speake of having seen 
-them ripe. The Puffyn hatcheth in holes of the Cliffe, 
whose young ones are thence ferretted out, being ex- 
ceeding fat, kept salted, and reputed for fish, as comming 
neerest thereto in their taste. The Burranet hath like 
breeding, and, after her young ones are hatched, shee 
leadeth them sometimes over-land, the space of a mile 
or better, into the haven, where such as have leasure to 
take their pastime, chace them one by one with a boate, 
and stones, to often diving, untill, through wearinesse, 
they are taken up at the boates side by hand, carried home, 
and kept tame with the Ducks : the Egges of divers of 
these Foules are good to be eaten. 

“ Sea-fowle not eatable are Ganets, Ospray (Plynyes 

“Amongst which Jacke-Daw (the second slaunder of our 
Countrie) shall passe for companie, as frequenting their 
haunt, though not their diet: I meane not the common Daw, 
but one peculiar to Cornwall, and there-through termed 
a Cornish Chough : his bill is sharpe, long, and red, his 
legs of the same colour, his feathers blacke, his conditions, 
when he is kept tame, ungratious, in filching, and hiding 
of money, and such short ends, and somewhat dangerous 
in carrying stickes of fire.” 

The full title of the book is as follows :— 

“The / Survey of / Cornwall / written by Richard 
Carew / of Antonie, Esquire. / London / Printed 
by S. S. for John Jaggard, and are to bee sold / 
neere Temple-barre, at the signe of the Hand / 
and Starre. 1602.” 
1 vol. £. ¢. 4to. 

Collation pp. 10 unnumbered + fol. 160 + pp. 6. 

* Of. “The Ornithology’? of Francis Willughby (London, 1678, 1 
Vol., folio). In the account of the Bald-Buzzard, p. 70, occurs the 
following: ‘‘ At Pensans in Cornwal we saw one that was shot, having 
a Mullet in its claw: for it preys upon fish, which seems very strange 
and wonderful, sith it is neither whole-footed nor provided with long 
legs or neck.” 

Joshua Childrey, in his “ Britannia Baconia”? (London, 1661, 
1 vol., 12mo) in his article on Cornwall observes (p. 20) ‘‘ There are 
also Sprayes here, the same fowle that Pliny calls Haliaetos, but it is 
not eatable.”’ 



—“g-/ CORNWALL. Hy 

Written by Richard Carew 
of Antonie, E/quire. 

Printed by S, S. for Iohn Jaggard, and are to bee fold 
acere Temple-barre, at the figne of the Hand 
andStarre. 1 6 © 2. 


This, the first edition, which is rare, is described by 
John Nicholson in his “* Bibliotheca Topographica 
Britannica’ as “an exact and excellent survey.” A 
facsimile of the title page is given opposite. 

This edition was followed by another in 1723, entitled :— 
“The / Survey / of Cornwall / and / an Epistle 
concerning the / Excellencies of the / English 
Tongue. / Now first published from _ the 
Manuscript. / By Richard Carew, of Antonie, 
Esq.; / with / The Life of the Author, / By 
Ee Ce | eq. 5°)’ London,. / Printed for 
Samuel Chapman, at the Angel in Pallmall; / 
Daniel Browne jun. at the Black Swan without 
Temple- / Bar; and James Woodman, at 
Cambden’s-Head in Bowstreet / Covent-Garden 

1 Vol. f. c. 4to. 7 

Collation pp. xx. + pp. 8 unnumbered + fol. 159 + pp. 
8, ‘table of contents,’ + pp. 14. The dedication is signed 
by James Woodman. 

This edition was reprinted in 1769. 

And in 1811 appeared that of Thomas Tonkin. 1 vol. 4to. 

Richard Carew was born at East Antonie “In the 
Eastern Parts of Cornwall, within some Miles of 
Plymouth,” in the year 1555 (cf. Wood Athen. Oxon., 
Vol. I.). He was the son of Thomas Carew, and Elizabeth 
Edgecomb, daughter of Sir Richard Edgecomb, of Mount- 
Edgecomb in Devon. 

In 1566 at the very early age of eleven, Carew “ became 
a Gentleman Commoner of Christ Church ’’ Oxford, but 
“had his chamber in Broadgate’s Hall.’’ While at Oxford, 
Carew (according to Dr. Fuller in his History of the Worthies 
of England, p. 203) “ being but fourteen years old, and 
yet three years standing, he was call’d out to dispute 
eatempore, before the Earls of Leicester and Warwick, 
with the matchless Sir Philip Sidney.” * 

* Sir Philip Sidney was born in 1554 and was then, therefore, fifteen 
years old. 


After leaving Oxford, Carew seems to have proceeded 
to the Middle Temple, and according to Wood, was three 
years later “sent with his Uncle (Sir George Carew, 
as it seems) in his embassage unto the King of Poland ; 
whom when he came to Dantzick, he found that he had 
been newly gone from thence into Sweden, whither also 
he went after him.” Richard Carew mentions his uncle, 
‘““Master George Carew,” in his Survey (fol. 61), and 
refers to the embassy to Poland, but says nothing about 
accompanying his relative. 

Carew, in due course, appears to have settled down at 
his ancestral seat of Antonie, and to have studied 
agriculture and husbandry to such purpose that “ he was 
accounted among his Neighbours the greatest Husband 
and most excellent Manager of Bees in Cornwall.” He 
became High Sheriff of his County in 1586, and in 1599 
was “‘ Colonel of a Regiment consisting of five companies, 
or 500 Men, armed with 170 Pikes, 300 Musquets and 30 
Calivers,* appointed for Causam Bay.”’ 

In 1589, Carew was elected a member of the College of 
Antiquities, a Society which at that time was about to 
apply to Queen Elizabeth for a Royal Charter—* But as 
fair as the Hopes of this famous College appeared in its 
Bloom, they were soon blighted by the Death of that 
ever-memorable Princess”? and all “their applications 
to his successor, proved vain and unsuccessful. But 
what else could be expected from a Man . . . whose 
Genius and taste were as low and mean as his Soul and 
Inclinations ! ” 

Richard Carew died on the 6th day of November, 1620, 
in the 63rd year of his age, and lies buried in the Church 
of East Antonie among his ancestors. 

* 7.e., a light hand-gun fired without a rest. 

( ol) 



Para XE, 

(Continued from page 27.) 

COMMON SHELD-DUCK Tadorna cornuta (S.G.Gm.). 
S. page 419. 

NorroLtk.—A satisfactory increase is recorded in the Lynn 
and Hunstanton districts (J. H. Gurney, Zool., 1903, p. 130). 

Kent.—Breeds numerously in the marshes adjoining 
the tidal waters in the north of the county. For interesting 
details vide T. Hepburn, ‘ Zool.,” 1907, pp. 54 et seq. 

RUDDY SHELD-DUCK Tadorna casarca (L.). 
S. page 421. 

NorFroitk.—An adult female, ‘* believed to have been shot 
in Norfolk,’ was sent to Mr. Cole for preservation August 
18th, 1898 (A. Patterson, Zool., 1900, p. 530). 

Two (possibly turned out) seen on Foulmere by Mr. W. 
Clarke, April 13th, 1906 (J. H. Gurney, t.c., 1907, p. 126). 

GADWALL Anas strepera L. 8S. page 425. 

Hants.—In 1904 a number of pinioned birds were turned 
out on Beaulieu Manor (Heatley Noble, Zool., 1904, p. 193). 

Is supposed to have nested at Beaulieu (J. E. Kelsall and 
P. W. Munn, B. of Hants., p. 226). 

CoRNWALL.—Has been procured at least six times, the 
two latest were a male near Bodmin, in January, 1905, and a 
female near Land’s End, January 10th, 1907 (J. Clark, Zool., 
1907, p. 285). 

Scitty IstEs.—One was shot at Tresco on January lst, 
1900, the first recorded (J. Clark and F. R. Rodd, t.c., 1906, 
p- 304). 

SHROPSHIRE.—A drake was seen in Hawkstone Park on 
December 9th, 1906 (C. Oldham, f.c., 1907, p. 32). 

MerRIoNETH.—A male was shot at Ynysfor, on December 


30th, 1890, and a female at the same place on December 14th, 
1901 (G. H. Caton Haigh, t.c., 1902, p. 112); while another 
was shot at the same place on December 20th, 1904 (H. E. 
Forrest, Vert. Fauna N. Wales, p. 277). 

Norts.—One was shot at Besthorpe in November, 1906, 
and a pair at Clumber in December, 1906, and a few have 
been seen in recent years at Annesley (J. Whitaker, B. of 
Notts., p. 196). 

YORKSHIRE.—Three were obtained at the Teesmouth in 
October, 1896 (T. H. Nelson, B. of Yorks., p. 451). 

PEEBLESSHIRE.—A pair were reported to have nested near 
Broughton, and to have reared their brood in 1906 (H. B. 
Marshall, Field, 28, vir., 06). 

In spite of its increase in Norfolk, the Gadwall seems, 
according to all recent accounts, to be still a rather rare 
visitor to the rest of Great Britain, and especially so in the 
west. It does not appear to have established itself as a 
breeding species in any county but Norfolk and Suffolk. 

IRELAND.—Several were “hot on Lough Key, co. Roscom- 
mon, in the winters of 1905-7 and 1907-8 (H. G. O. Bridgeman, 
Trish Nat., 1908, p. 101). 

The Gadwall is a scarce and irregular winter visitor to 
Ireland, and has not apparently been recorded from Ros- 
common previously, although it has occurred from time to 
time in most counties. 

SHOVELER Spatula clypeata (L.). S. page 427. 

LINCOLNSHIRE.—In August, 1902, Mr. Caton Haigh saw a 
few Shovelers at Tetney, and was told that at least one pair 
had bred there; on August 14th, 1903, he saw two broods 
at the same place (G. H. Caton Haigh, Zool., 1903, p. 368 ; 
1904, p. 297). 

NorFroLtk.—Nearly thirty pairs were breeding at Hoveton 
in 1906 (J. H.« Gumey, 7¢.c;; 1907, p.- 127). 

SuFFOLK.—Breeds regularly in the north-east of the county 
(F. C. R. Jourdain, in Witt.). 

Essex.—Mr. H. M. Wallis has found the nest on the coast, 
and Mr. Miller Christy has recorded it as breeding (Vict. Hist. 

Herts.—Nests regularly at Tring (O. V. Aplin, t.c., 1902, 
p. 68). Near Tring two or three pairs have bred regularly for 
at least ten or twelve years (Rothschild and Hartert, Vict. 
Hist. Bucks., 1., p. 145 (1905)). 

STAFFORDSHIRE.—Now known to breed regularly in several 
places in the Cannock district (F. C. R. Jourdain in litt.). 


BEDFORDSHIRE.—Now known to breed regularly in several 
places (id.). 

Kent.—A brood of nine young, with the parents, seen in 
Romney Marsh May 19th, 1900 (N.F.T., Zool., 1900, p. 279). 
During the last seven years the birds in this locality have 
increased, and nests have been found every year (N.F.T.). 
In the north of the county it breeds numerously in the 
marshes of the Thames Estuary, cf. Mr. Hepburn’s article 
(Zool., 1907, pp. 52 et seq.). 

HampsuHire.—Increasing as a breeding species, especially 
in the valley of the Avon (J. E. Kelsall and P. W. Munn, 
B. of Hants., p. 232). 

Devon.—A pair reared their young at Braunton, in 1904 
(J. Cummings, Zool., 1905, p. 112). A pair said to have bred 
in North Devon for the past three years (B. F. Cummings, 
me., 1907, p. 22). 

SHROPSHIRE.—At least one pair nested and reared a brood 
on the marshes at Minsterley in 1907 (H. E. Forrest, Caradoc 
F. Club Rep., 1908, p. 30). 

The Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain informs us that he knows that 
it has bred also in the following counties not mentioned in 
the ‘Manual,’ Dorset, SUSSEX, CAMBRIDGESHIRE (locally 
common) and LANCASHIRE. 

NorrH Wates.—It breeds regularly in some numbers in 
Anglesey, and a pair nested in 1896 at Llyn Mynyddlod, in 
Merioneth (H. E. Forrest, Vert. Fauna N. Wales, p. 278). 

ScoTLaAND.—It nests not infrequently on the borders of 
Northumberland, especially on the Scottish side (A. Chapman, 
Bird-Life Borders, p. 97). Hast Lothian.—Although nesting, 
is by no means a common bird (H. D. Simpson, Zool., 
1904, p. 459). Tay Basin.—Still increasing. Becoming very 
generally distributed in suitable situations on the shallower 
and reedier lochs of the east (J. A. Harvie-Brown, Fauna 
Tay Basin, etc., p. 233). Sutherland.—Colonel Duthie found 
a nest, and saw three or four birds on Loch Canna, Assynt, 
in the west of the county (id., Fauna N. W. Highlands, etc., 
p- 231). Outer Hebrides.—Bred on South Uist (first time 
_ recorded) in 1903 (zd. op. cit., p. 237). Nest found, and several 

pairs seen in 1906 (N. B. Kinnear, Ann. S.N.H., 1907, p. 82), 
and in 1907 “still on the increase,’ and two nests found 
fee. Bahr, é.c.,;: 1907, p. 213). 

IRELAND.—Oo. Antrim.—Two nests taken in May, 1901, 
near Belfast, were first recorded as being those of the Wigeon, 
but were afterwards proved by Mr. Heatley Noble to be 
Shovelers’ (R. Patterson, Irish Nat., 1901, p. 147, and 1903, 
p. 275). Co. Mayo.—Although scarce a few years ago they 


now breed on many of the lakes in North Mayo (R. Warren, 
t.c., 1902, p. 247). Co. Donegal.—Has increased very much ° 
as a breeding species on Lough Swilly of late years (D. C. 
Campbell, t.c., 1905, p. 263). 

The Shoveler is evidently increasing, and extending its 
range, and ornithologists would do well to take most careful 
notes from year to year of the numbers of these birds 
wherever they are nesting, as well as of Pochards, Tufted 
Ducks, and other increasing species. 

Sequence of Plumages.—Mr. J. L. Bonhote states that the 
drakes have an intermediate plumage between that’ of the 
‘eclipse’? and the full breeding plumage. This plumage 
succeeds the “ eclipse’? in September, and the full plumage 
is attained gradually during the course of the winter (J. L. 
Bonhote, Bull. B.O.C., XVI., p. 64). 

PINTAIL Dafila acuta (L.). S. page 429. 

ScotLanp.—Berwick.—A nest with seven eggs (five hatched 
out) was found near Hawick on May 17th, 1901 (Ann. S._N.Z., 
1902, p. 1383). Selkirk.—A female was flushed from her eggs 
and watched in the southern part of the county on May 15th, 
1901 (W. Renton, ¢.c., 1902, p. 120). Argyll—Four or five 
were seen (? breeding) on June 4th, 1907, on Loch Tulla 
(C. H. Alston, t.c., 1908, p. 119). Inverness.—In the British 
Museum there is a clutch of seven eggs from ‘ Cromlit, 
Knockie,”’ from the late Edw. Hargitt (F. C. R. Jourdain, in 
litt.). Outer Hebrides.—Broods were seen in S. Uist in 1902, 
and the species appears to be increasing as a winter bird in 
Benbecula (J. A. Harvie-Brown, t.c., 1902, pp. 209-210). 
Shetland.—A pair with young birds identified June 4th, 1905, 
at Dunrossness (T. Henderson, Jun., f.c., 1906, p. 53; cf. 
Harvie-Brown, t.c., 1907, 115). 

TEAL WNettion crecca (L.). 8S. page 431. 

OvuteR Hesripes.—Now breeds plentifully in the Uvzsts 
and Benbecula (N. B. Kinnear and P. H. Bahr, Ann. S.N.Z., 
1907, pp. 218 and 820; and J. A. Harvie-Brown, i.c., 1902, 
p. 209). The first actual record of its nesting on Lewis was 
made in 1903 (2d., t.c., 1903, p. 245). 

GARGANEY Querquedula circia (L.). 8S. page 435. 
DurHAM.—Bred at the Teesmouth between 1880-7 (T. H. 
Nelson, B. of Yorks, p. 457). 
NorFoLk.—Nests estimated at two in 1898 in the Broad 
District (J. H. Gurney, Zool., 1899, p. 115). 
Kent.—Two nests found in Romney Marsh in May, 1900 


(N.F.T., ¢.c.; 1900, p. 279). Seems to be on the increase in 
Romney Marsh, five pairs seen in 1907 at one locality (N.F.T.). 
In the North Kent marshes Mr. T. Hepburn believes that it 
nests, and has seen birds in April and May, but has not as yet 
been able to confirm the fact (é.c., 1907, p. 48). 

Hants.—It appears to have nested near Fareham in 
1897 (J. E. Kelsall and P. W. Munn, B. of Hants., p. 228). 

Scitty Istes.—Has been obtained seven times (J. Clark 
and F. R. Rodd, Zool., 1906, p. 304). 

ANGLESEY.—An adult male seen April 15th, 1905 (T. A. 
Coward, t.c., 1905, p. 386). 

SHETLAND.—A male was shot on April 14th, 1907 (T. E. 
Saxby, Ann. S.N.H., 1907, p. 182). 

WIGEON Mareca penelope (L.). S. page 437. 

CUMBERLAND.—A nest with ten eggs reported to have been 
found in 1903 (Field, 25, vir., and 1, vimt., 03). 

Yorxks.—In addition to the nest found near Scarborough 
in 1897, a pair bred at Malham Tarn in 1901, and in a semi- 
domesticated state it breeds regularly at Thirkleby Park, 
and at Scampston (T. H. Nelson, B. of Yorks., p. 460). 

[NorFroLtk.—A deserted nest, said to have been a Wigeon’s 
from the appearance of the eggs and down, was found in’ 
Norfolk in 1904 (J. Whitaker, Field, 18, v1., 04). We believe 
that this certainly was not the nest of a Widgeon but that of 
a Gadwall. | 

Merionetu.—A pair nested on Llyn Mynyddlod in 1898. 
Two pairs were seen at the same place April 19-30th, 1902, 
and a young bird was shot there September 30th, 1904 (H. E. 
Forrest, Vert. Fauna N. Wales, p. 283). 

Scottanp.—Sutherland.—There is evidence of Wigeon 
breeding on Loch Assynt in 1901 and 1902, and several pairs 
were seen around Loch Urigil in 1903. A nest was found at 
the latter in May, 1903, by Mr. Blathwayt, and is the first 
authentic record of the Wigeon breeding to the west of the 
Divide (J. A. Harvie-Brown, Fauna N.W. Highlands, etc., 
pp. 234, 235.) Roxburgh.—There is a certain amount of 
evidence that Wigeon have bred near Yetholm from time to 
time, but absolute proof is still wanting (A. Chapman, Bird-Life 
Borders, p. 90). Outer Hebrides.—A pair seen several times in 
June, 1906, but no nest found (N. B. Kinnear, Ann. S.N.H., 
1907, p. 82). 

For some interesting notes as to the first records of the 
breeding of the Wigeon in Scotland wide ‘‘ Ann. Scott. Nat. 
Hist.,”’ 1902, p. 200, footnotes. 


AMERICAN WIGEON Mareca americana (J. F. Gm.). 
S. page 439. 

An adult male was shot on Benbecula, Outer Hebrides, 
on January 3rd, 1907, by Mr. E. M. Corbett (R. Bowdler 
Sharpe, Bull. B.O.C., XIX., p. 57, cf. also Ann. S.N.H., 1907, 
p. 116). This is the first authentic record of the occurrence 
of this rare wanderer in Scotland. The bird is now in the 
British Museum (Natural History). 

RED-CRESTED POCHARD WNetta rufina (Pall.). 
S. page 441. 

YORKSHIRE.—One shot near Redcar, January 20th, 1900 
(T. H. Nelson, Zool., 1900, p. 483). Another was shot about 
February 10th, 1900, at Coatham, near Redcar (J. W. Fawcett, 
Nat., 1900, p. 304).—Thirteen appeared on Breydon on September 
4th, 1906, and nine of them were killed by a punt gunner 
named Youngs. A tenth was picked up dead soon after in 
the neighbouring marshes (A. H. Patterson, t.c., 1906, p. 394). 
Another pair was shot at Hickling by Alfred Nudd, on Sep- 
tember 8th (N. H. Smith, Field, 15, 1x., 06); while two 
others were seen there on the 12th and escaped. They all 
appear to have been adult birds, the drakes being still in eclipse 
(J. H. Gurney, Zool., 1907, p. 134). 

SuFrFoLK.—An adult pair shot at Thorpe Mere by the sea, 
January 16th, 1904, by Mr. F. G. Garrett (2d., t.c., 1905, p. 90; 
Bull. B.O.C., XIV., p. 62). 

COMMON POCHARD Fuligula ferina (L.). S. page 443. 

DuruHam.—A pair nested successfully in 1903 in the south- 
east of the county, and attempted to nest again in 1904 
(C. E. Milburn, Nat., 1904, p. 216). 

Norrotk.—Mr. J. H. Gurney describes a female bird in 
his possession, which was caught in Saham Mere in 1904, 
and which he believes to be a hybrid with a Tufted Duck 
(Zool., 1905, p. 268). 

EssEx.—Has bred since 1886 (M. Christy, Vict. Hist. Essex). 

Kent.—Mr. T. Hepburn found a nest containing seven 
eggs, which he believes to have been Pochard’s, in the 
marshes of north Kent, on April 19th, 1904 (¢.c., 1907, p. 48). 
In the same locality it has since been found nesting with 
certainty by Mr. Walpole Bond (in litt.). 

Herts.—Breeds in increasing numbers at Tring. 

BERKSHIRE.—At least six pairs nested in Windsor Park in 
1907 (Graham W. Kerr, Zool., 1908, p. 139). 


BEDFORDSHIRE.—Recorded as breeding (Vict. Hist. Beds., 
Wol. T., p: 126). 

STAFFORDSHIRE.—Recorded definitely as breeding at 
Gailey Pools in 1890 (Rep. N. Staffs. F. Club, 1905-6, p. 49). 

Hants.—Is said by Hart to have nested in the New Forest 
district since 1880, but has not been found nesting elsewhere 
in the county (J. E. Kelsall and P. W. Munn, B. of Hants., 
p. 238). 

ScotrisH BorpERS.—Twenty to thirty pairs nesting on 
Hoselaw Loch in 1906. Whitrigg Bog, near St. Boswells, 
Roxburgh and Hule Moss, on Greenlaw Moor, Berwickshire, 
are now the only other localities on the borders where the 
Pochard nests (A. Chapman, bird-Life Borders, p. 90). 

OvuTER HEBRIDES.—Now far from uncommon (J. A. Harvie- 
Brown, Ann. S.N.H., 1902, p. 211). 

FERRUGINOUS DUCK Fuligula nyroca (Gild.). 
S. page 445. 

YORKSHIRE.—In the spring of 1903 four birds frequented 
a sheet of water near Ackworth, and two, an adult male and 
a female, were shot. The others, which were a pair, remained 
there till the end of the year (W. B. Arundel, Zool., 1904, 
p. 33). 

NorFotk.—In April, 1903, twenty birds in two flocks, 
frequented Rollesby and Hickling Broads. One _ flock 
was composed entirely of adult males (J. H. Gurney, t.c., 
1904, p. 207). An immature bird was shot on January lst, 
1906, on the Broads (M. C. H. Bird, t.c., 1906, p. 75). - Four 
were seen on the Broads on April 10th, 1906, the day follow- 
ing a N.E. gale (J. H. Gurney, f.c., 1907, p. 126). <A flock of 
five was “reported”? on Hickling on December 27th, 1907 
(id., t:¢., 1908; p. 135). 

SuFFOLK.—One was shot at Culford on January 23rd, 
1906, after a N.E. gale, and a second a few days later (id., 
Pee, 1907, p. 123). 

SurRREY.—One in the Charterhouse collection is stated to 
have been shot at Bramley (J. A. Bucknill, B. of Surrey, 
p. 239). 

CoRNWALL.—An immature male was killed on the beach 
near Mylor, on March 11th, 1905, during very stormy weather. 
The first record for the county. (J. Clark, Zool., 1907, p. 285.) 

MontTcoMERY.—One was shot out of a party of seven at 
Machynlleth by Mr. Percy Lewis, on April 2nd, 1906 (H. E. 
Forrest, Vert. Fauna N. Wales, p. 286). 

(To be continued.) 


WHILE spending the Whitsun holidays on Hickling Broad 
I had the good fortune to inspect two nests of the Bearded 
Tit (Panurus biarmicus) and the following notes thereon may 
prove of interest. 

Each nest contained six nestlings just showing the first 
traces of feathers, but no trace whatever of nestling down 
—a point worth mentioning—further, they had passed the 
“blind ” stage, the eyes being fully opened. 

But what I was specially interested in was the coloration 
and form of the markings of the inside of the mouth, which 
differed from any description hitherto given, including my own 
(cjante; Vol. ¥., po lau) 


Briefly, these markings take the form of four rows of 
pearly-white, conical, peg-like projections, suggesting the. 
palatal teeth of reptiles, two on either side of the middle line. 
These tooth-like bodies, which are well shown in the accom- 
panying photograph, were not of uniform size, and were set 
in a background of black surrounded by a rich carnelian red, 
the whole being framed in by the lemon-yellow gape-wattles, 

NOTES. 59 

which are not very strongly developed. The tongue is black 
with a white tip, and a pair of white spurs at its base. 

The first nest was quite normal in position, but the second 
had, unfortunately, been placed actually on the ground, and 
some five or six yards from the water. I first visited this 
nest on June 8th and photographed the young in situ. The 
photograph proving unsatisfactory, I returned on the 11th 
for the purpose of making another attempt but found, to my 
dismay, that a tragedy had happened. In the nest lay two 
dead and bleeding young, while around the nest lay the 
remaining four, all more or less mangled. The burying 
beetles had commenced their work of interment, and at first 
I wondered whether they had gathered in force and worked 
the mischief. Realizing how highly improbable this was, I 
removed the nest and, tearing away the grass on which it 
had rested, discovered, beneath, the runs of a mole! About 
these there could be no mistake, and we must assume, 
therefore, that a mole had worked the mischief—a not 
unprecedented event. 

The nest I pulled to pieces on the spot—it was already 
greatly damaged—and found that while it was typical in its 
general conformation—leaves of the reed forming its outside, 
the flower-heads thereof its linmg—it differed from all the 
published descriptions I have so far met with in having a 
number of feathers interwoven with the lining. I detected 
feathers of Swan, Mallard, Water-Hen and Snipe. 

W.. Pl Pyerarr: 


In view of the fact that up to the time of publishing my 
“Fauna of North Wales” no authentic occurrence of the 
Nuthatch (Sitta cesia) on the north coast of Wales was known, 
it is interesting to note that a pair took up quarters in 
Gloddaeth Woods, Llandudno, early in the present year, 
and bred there later on. They were first observed by Mr. 
R. W. Jones, who showed me the nest-hole on May 10th. I 
heard the bird calling close by at the time. 

H. E. Forrest. 


Mr. J. A. Juckss (Acock’s Green, Birmingham) reports seeing 
a male Golden Oriole (Oriolus galbula) at Cleobury-Mortimer, 
Shropshire, on April 26th (Birmingham Daily Mail, May 2nd, 
1908). The Golden Oriole has occurred previously on two 
or three occasions in Shropshire. 

H. E. Forrest 



On May 2nd, 1908, I saw two Woodchats (Lanius pomeranus), 
I think male and female, on some furze bushes by the side of 
the river Dane, about two miles above Congleton. The 
reddish-brown head and conspicuous black and white plumage 
of the male, coupled with the unmistakable Shrike beak, 
struck me at once. The female was not so bright in colour. 
I watched them for about fifteen minutes. The birds were 
remarkably tame, and allowed me to approach within about 
three yards of them. They seemed to be hunting for some- 
thing among the spines of the furze. Eventually they flew 
away. I have been to the spot on several occasions since, 
but have not seen them again. The Woodchat has not been 
observed in Cheshire on any previous occasion, but it has 
twice been recorded from Lancashire. 

J. M. St. JoHN YATES. 

[Mr. T. A. Coward kindly substantiates the above record, 
which is rather wanting in detail. Mr. Yates described the 
birds fully to Mr. Coward, and we are quite satisfied that the 
identification was correct. Mr. Yates is, Mr. Coward writes, 
an enthusiastic bird observer, and knows the Red-backed 
Shrike well. We have only to add that it is a pity that those 
who observe rare wanderers and do not obtain them, do not 
always write down on the spot as full a description as possible 
of what they see.—EDs.] 


Mr. G. H. Pappock saw a Hoopoe (Upupa epops) in his 
garden in Wellington, Salop, on the morning of May 29th, 
and watched it for some time. It was set upon by a number 
of Sparrows, which compelled it to fly away. Over a dozen 
previous occurrences in Shropshire have been recorded. 

H. E. Forrest. 


I am indebted to Lieut. W. M. Congreve for news of the 
finding of two nests of the Short-eared Owl (Asio accipitrinus) 
in the neighbourhood of Pembroke Dock. The first was 
discovered early in May, and was remarkable for the 
elongated shape of the eggs. The second—a fortnight later— 
contained eggs of the ordinary rounded type. The Rev. 

NOTES. 61 

Murray A. Mathew, in his book on the “ Birds of Pembroke- 

shire,” refers to this bird as having bred on Skomer Island, 
but appears not to have seen it there himself. 

H. E. Forrest, 


THE following appeared in one of the Scottish papers, and 
was forwarded to me. 

‘Some of your readers will be interested in learning that a 
pair of Wild Swans are this year nesting on a small loch near 
the Parish Church in the Island of Coll. . . . ete.—W. A. G.” 

I visited the Island of Coll on June 14th and saw the birds 
in question ; they are not ‘‘ Wild Swans,” but Mute Swans (C. 
olor). Five eggs were laid; two hatched, and the cygnets are 
now with the parent birds. These particulars are sent in 
case the mistake may be quoted at some future date. 

HeatLey NOoBLeE. 


Mr. Heattey Nose in his interesting and useful paper 
“On the Identification of Ducks’ Eggs” (ante, p. 19), calls 
attention to two facts regarding the nesting of the Sheld- 
Duck (Zadorna cornuta) in Norfolk which are of especial 
interest. First, as to the greatly increased number of Sheld- 
Ducks nesting with us, and, secondly, as to this bird fre- 
quenting localities distant from the sea-shore, where alone we 
have been accustomed to look for it at that time. 

As to the increased numbers to be found nesting. We have 
the evidence of Sir Thomas Browne that in his time (1668) 
they were ‘‘not so rare as Turn[fer|* makes them comon in 
Norfolk so abounding in vast and spatious warrens,” but, 
like all other breeding birds, constant persecution reduced 
its numbers in pre-protection times to a very sad remnant, 
so that Stevenson writing about the year 1890 could only 
record that, at that time, only a few pairs nested in the 
sandhills on the north-west coast of the county. I can well 
remember how in the summer of 1853 I was surprised to find 
fragments of the egg-shells of this bird outside a burrow on 
the Wells ‘‘ meals”? from which a brood had evidently been 
hatched. Since protection has been extended to them their 
numbers (as well as those of other species of Ducks) nesting 
in Norfolk have increased amazingly and they are to be 
found nesting in most suitable localities on the north and 
west coasts. 

* See “ Turner on Birds,’’ Evans’ Edit., p. 25. 


The fact of their occasionally nesting at a considerable 
distance from the sea-shore in former times did not escape 
Stevenson’s notice, and he enlarges upon the subject in the 
‘Birds of Norfolk” (Vol. III., p. 124), quoting Sir Thomas 
Browne (as above), who states that they bred ‘‘in cunny 
burrows about Norrold [Northwold] and other places”? some 
eighteen or twenty miles from the sea. Stevenson also men- 
tions that these birds had been known to nest in the heaths 
at Dersingham and Sandringham, and it is interesting to 
have Mr. Noble’s statement that they still frequent the same 
neighbourhood for that purpose. 

I have also been told, but I forget my authority, that the 
Sheld-Duck nests on the Twig Moor, the Lincolnshire breeding 
place of the Black-headed Gull. Can any of your corre- 
spondents confirm this? It is worthy of remark that seven 
of the species of Duck mentioned by Mr. Noble nest regularly 
in Norfolk and one other (the Wigeon) is suspected of having 

done so. T. SouTHWELL. 


Mr. Herattey Nose, in his interesting paper on the 
‘Identification of Ducks’ Eggs,” asks the experience of 
readers as to the amount of down in Mallards’ nests when 
placed among thick rushes. I have observed two such nests 
this spring, in one of which very little down was present, 
while in the other only a few bits could be found by lifting 
the eggs. One or two pairs nest every season in the same 
place, a large disused gravel-pit, overgrown with bulrushes, 
etc., and I always notice the same deficiency of down in these 

With reference to Sheld-Ducks, on June 9th, this year, I 
had, in this corner of Yorkshire (Hull district), a very similar 
experience to Mr. Noble’s in Norfolk, viz., the sight of 
twenty-two adult birds on the wing together. 



A FEMALE Common Crane (Grus communis) was shot at 
midnight on the 16th May, 1908, at Rhosneigr, Anglesey, by 
the gamekeeper, on the estate of Colonel Thomas J. Long. 
The plumage and feet of the bird are in most perfect condition, 
and there is no indication that it had been in captivity. 
Judging from the colour of the plumage it had not quite 
reached maturity; but the ovaries were well developed, the 
largest being about the size of a pea, and the red wattles on 

NOTES. 63 

the head were well marked. The measurements were as 
follows :—Length, 44 inches; wing, 21 inches; tarsus, 8? 
inches; weight, 11 pounds. The stomach was completely 
filled with equal parts of pebbles and grit, and the remains 
of the large tipulid larva (T7pula oleracea), of which fifty-four 
examples were almost perfect, the largest measuring 14 inches 
in length. Besides these, there were also the remains of four 
Elaterid beetles (Agriotes sp.) and a freshly caught larva 
belonging to the same group, but not, apparently, of the same 
genus; there were also fragments of the dung beetles Aphodius 
fimetarius and Geotrupes sp., and two oat glumes. Colonel 
T. J. Long has very generously presented the specimen to the 
Grosvenor Museum, Chester, where it is highly valued, and 
forms an extremely interesting addition to the local collections 
preserved in this institution. 

ALFRED NEwsTEAD (Curator). 

Cranes of various kinds are often kept in semi-captivity with cut, 
and not pinioned, wings (cf. ante, Vol. I., p. 91), and frequently escape 
when they grow new quill feathers, and then show no signs of captivity. 
We have, therefore, asked Mr. Newstead to make a more critical 
examination of the contents of the stomach of the bird above recorded, 
in the hopes that this might prove its origin. Unfortunately, the 
contents of the stomach do not greatly help us. 

Mr. Robert Newstead kindly writes :—‘‘ As to the insects taken 
from the stomach, I can only confirm what my brother has stated in 
his letter to you. I have given these a most criticial examination, and 
find that they are all indigenous species; and the majority had been 
captured by the bird within a few hours of its death. With the ex- 
ception of the larva of the Agrotid beetle, they are all common and 
widely distributed species ; and are as abundant in Anglesey as in any 
other part of the British Isles.” 

Mr. J. Lomas (lecturer in Geology at the University, Liverpool) has 
very kindly examined the stones, and finds them to represent the 
following :— 


Quartzite and vein quartz white .. ae .. 485 
Flints os; 02 gt .. 40 
Quartzite and sandstone ve ts an Tay ou 
Chalcedony -p! oa a ite alle 
Pottery and porcelain ee se x ee 
Slates 3 wd ey ee eee 
Granites, letiblendic oe. “ot <¥ ame 6 
Mica schist .. 1 
Micaceous sandstone 1 


Mr. Lomas adds: ‘“ It would seem that the Crane selects the stones 

on account of their brightness. In a general assemblage of stones they 
are all such as would strike the eye at once, 516 of the stones being 
white in colour. It is difficult, if not impossible, to state where the 
stones come from. The quartzite are universally distributed. The 
only distinctive ones are the granites, and they certainly do not come 
from Anglesey. The flints are brown, and resemble southern types. 


They are not Irish. The slates and mica schist might come from 
Anglesey, the Isle of Man, or Scotland. We must not forget that the 
island is covered with glacial deposits which contain erratics from many 
localities, and that makes it increasingly difficult to trace their origin. 
I am sorry the examination of the stones does not lead to definite results 
from your point of view.’’—Ebs. 


Ir is generally supposed that these birds do not breed on the 
Skerries, and that the rocks are occupied during the breeding 
season exclusively by Arctic Terns and a few Roseate Terns 
(cf. H. E. Forrest, Vert. Fauna N. Wales, p. 375). That this 
is not the case has recently been proved by her Grace the 
Duchess of Bedford, who has been good enough to forward 
me a Common Tern (Sterna fluviatilis), which killed itself 
against the telephone wire whilst she was visiting the colony. 
Her Grace added, “‘ several were seen.”’ 



On May 15th, 1908, I took a nest, with its clutch of three 
eggs, of the Black-headed Gull (Larus ridibundus) from a 
lake island in Ireland where this Gull was nesting in 
numbers. It is well known that the ground colour and 
markings of their eggs vary to a considerable extent, these 
are of a pale greenish blue—the two largest almost without 
markings, the smallest with a few brownish blotches. The 
contents of the eggs were fresh and, as far as I could judge, 
normal in appearance, as are also the shells, with the exception 
of the smallest, which appears to be rough and of a some- 
what friable nature at its pointed end. They measure 
1-4 x 1.1 m.,° 1.6 12m. 1.7% 1.2 in. . Pattensieer 
‘Aquatic Birds” gives the average measurements of the 
eggs of the Black-headed Gull as 2.2 x 1.5 in. I believe 
complete clutches of abnormally small eggs of this species are 
not common. 



Durine the spring and summer of 1907 Mr. F. G. Paynter 
made some experiments as to the duration of the incubation- 
period of certain sea-birds at the Farne Islands by placing 
the eggs in a hot-air incubator. Mr. Paynter describes his 
experiments in “Country Life”? (March 21st, 1908, p. 409), 
and we give below the results arrived at, and add for the sake 

NOTES. 65 

of comparison the observations recorded by Mr. William 
Evans ([bis, 1891, pp. 52-93, 1892, pp. 55-58) :— 

Emer Duck (Somateria mollissima).—Thirty-one days. 
In Mr. W. Evans’ experiments an egg hatched in an incubator 
on the twenty-seventh day, and under a hen on the twenty- 
eighth day. 

RineeD PLoverR (4igialitis hiaticula)—Twenty-five days. 
Mr. Evans’ hatched in an incubator on the twenty-second, 
twenty-third, and twenty-fifth days. 

OysTER-CATCHER (Haematopus _ ostralegus)—Twenty-one 
days. Mr. Evans gives twenty-three to twenty-four days 
from observations on two nests watched by Colonel Duthie. 

SanpwicH TERN (Sterna cantiaca).—TIwenty days. Not 
given by Mr. Evans. 

Arctic TERN (S. macrura).—Twenty days. Not given by 
Mr. Evans, but the Common Tern is given as hatching two 
on the twenty-first, and one on the twenty-second day, in an 

HERRING-GULL (Larus argentatus).—Twenty-one days. Mr. 
Evans gives the twenty-sixth day under a hen. 

LEssER BLACK-BACKED GULL (L. fuscus).—Twenty-one 
days. Not given by Mr. Evans. 

RazorBILL (Alca torda).—Twenty-five days, Mr. Evans 
gives the thirtieth day in an incubator. Both Mr. Evans 
and Mr. Paynter remark that they cannot be absolutely 
certain that the eggs were fresh. 

Common GuiILLEMoT (Uria troidle).—Thirty-two days. Mr. 
Evans gives the thirtieth and thirty-third days for two eggs 
in an incubator, and thirty-first day for one under a hen. 

PuFFIN (Fratercula arctica).—Thirty-six days. In this case 
Mr. Paynter took eight eggs from different nests, and those 
which hatched out last he took as giving the correct period. 
Mr. Evans also gives the thirty-sixth day in an incubator. 

It will be seen that the results arrived at by Mr. Paynter 
and Mr. Evans differ considerably in many cases. Both 
authors took great care that the eggs used should be perfectly 
fresh, although in cases where the bird lays only a single egg 
this is somewhat difficult to ensure. There is no doubt con- 
siderable individual variation, and we shall hope that other 
ornithologists will take up the subject, so that sufficient 
observations may be made on this interesting subject to enable 
us to strike a reliable average of the incubation period in 
various species. 

In the same article Mr. Paynter makes some interesting 
remarks on the way in which Gulls, hatched in an incubator, 
practised flying by allowing the wind to lift them a few feet, 


and then dropping down again. This was practised for a 
week and even ten days before the birds were able to balance 
themselves well enough to fly any distance. 

KR os 

writes that since he recorded the occurrence of several 
nightingales in 1901 at Mickleover and Ockbrook, near Derby, 
they have not been seen or heard until this year. On May 
8th one was noticed at Chellaston, about four miles south of 
Derby, and was, up to May 13th, attracting large numbers 
of listeners (Field, 1908, p. 831). Nightingales, the Rev. F.C. R. 
Jourdain tells us, breed sporadically in south Derbyshire, north 
of the Trent, almost every year, but the above is a good deal 
further north than usual. Any records of the distribution of 
this bird towards the borders of its range are interesting. 

SuprposED WoopcHaT IN CorNwaLu.—Mr. G. H. Coles 
records (Field, 1908, p. 831) that he watched within forty 
feet with strong binoculars a Woodchat Shrike (L. pomeranus) 
on the downs near Sennen (Land’s End) on May 13th last. 
The only description he gives of the bird is: “ It was a male 
bird in brilliant plumage, and the chestnut colour of the 
back of the head and neck was particularly bright.” It is 
very possible that the bird was a Woodchat, but it is really 
impossible to accept such records as authentic unless better 
descriptions are given. The Woodchat has so many dis- 
tinguishing characteristics in the field that there is really no 
excuse in this case.—H.F.W. 

HaBits OF THE Cuckoo.—Mr. F. Banister writes in the 
“Field” (6, vr., 1908, p. 932) to the effect that he watched a 
Cuckoo visit a Hedge-Sparrow’s nest, containing three eggs, in 
a hedge. The Cuckoo went to the nest and emerged in about 
a minute with one of the Hedge-Sparrow’s eggs in its bill. 
This it proceeded to break up and, apparently, eat. On going 
to the nest, Mr. Banister found one Cuckoo’s egg and two 
Hedge-Sparrow’s. The author thinks that the Cuckoo laid 
the egg in the nest, but this does not seem to be proved in 
this case. The Cuckoo was at the nest for a very short time, 
and the egg might have been carried inside the mouth 
without attracting the attention of the observer. Observa- 
tions on the actual depositing of eggs by Cuckoos, being few, 
are always welcome (cf. B.B., Vol. I., p. 283).—H.F.W. 


ry : Y 5 \4) 
Te 710 BR} > 
=) ee Sy) 
m to x 

The British Warblers—A History, with Problems of their 
Inves. By H. Eliot Howard, F.Z.S., M.B.0.U. Parts 
I. and II. Coloured and photogravure plates. (R. H. 
Porter.) 21s. net per part. 

THis work promises to be of quite unusual interest and 
importance on account of the original observations on the 
habits of many of the birds of which it treats. On this account, 
and also for the plates depicting various seldom-seen attitudes, 
it is to be highly commended. The plates—some in colour 
and some in photogravure—represent the best work we. have 
yet seen from Mr. Gronvold. Those showing various attitudes 
assumed during courtship are especially lifelike, and these 
have been drawn from Mr. Howard’s originals. 

Part I. is concerned with the Sedge-Warbler and the 
Grasshopper-Warbler, and Part II. with the Chiffchaff and 
the Yellow-browed Warbler. The observations on the habits 
of the first three mentioned species should be read by everyone 
interested in bionomical questions. To enable him to make 
such detailed studies as are here set forth on the daily life of 
these secretive little birds Mr. Howard must be endowed with 
a patience beyond most men, and it is evident that he must 
also be a persistently early riser. There are, too, several 
thoughtful passages on evolutionary subjects—such as sexual 
selection, and the plasticity of instinct—which deserve careful 

We may here draw attention to a few of the points brought 
out by Mr. Howard’s observations. In the three species 
mentioned, the males appear to arrive at the breeding place 
a week or ten days before the females. The area in which 
the nesting operations are to take place is apparently chosen 
by the male, and he spends much of his time in guarding 
this area from all other males of his species. It has often 
been noted that the same nesting site has been used for 
many years by a pair of the same species. We believe that 
this is much more generally the case than is supposed, and in 
such instances it may be concluded that if either of the pair 
dies during the winter the survivor brings a new mate to the 
nesting site the next spring. If only the males choose the 
nesting territory then it is puzzling how it occurs that the 
same place is occupied for many years in succession, unless, 
indeed, the heir returning to the locality of his birth finds his 


father no more and steps into his shoes. Birds are creatures 
of habit, as Mr. Howard demonstrates, and if the males come 
back to the same territory then the females do also, and if so, 
surely the same two birds are mated as long as both live. 
Would not this account for the apparent absence of choice 
by the female of any particular male (see Grasshopper- Warbler, 
p. 14)? Is there always an absence of choice, or has it so 
happened that Mr. Howard has watched previously mated 
birds, and not those which have never before been mated ? 
We hope that Mr. Howard, with his great powers of observa- 
tion, will give us in a future instalment the result of his 
observations on this point, for it seems to us most unlikely 
that birds choose a new mate each spring. 

We have space only to allude to some of the many other 
interesting facts so pleasantly recorded in these pages. A 
curious feature in the courting display of these three species 
is that the male frequently picks up a leaf or stick and holds 
it in its beak while following the female. The females do 
most of the building of the nest and the feeding of the young ; 
the feces of the young are sometimes swallowed by the parent 
bird, as they are almost invariably by the Thrushes; the 
song of the Grasshopper-Warbler almost ceases after pairing 
is over; the nestlings of the same species leave the nest when 
only a few days old, and some time before they are able to 

There is so much that is good in this book that we are 
somewhat unwilling to criticize. We must, however, express 
the opinion that the general plan of the work appears to us 
to be unwise. The descriptions of the plumages are most un- 
satisfactory in that they add little or nothing to our knowledge, 
which is a great pity, for we know little of the sequences 
of the plumages of these birds, and the moults they go through. 
Then in species such as the Yellow-browed Warbler, with 
which presumably the author has no acquaintance, no account 
of habits is given. Thus the work is incomplete, and in no 
sense a monograph. It seems to us a pity that the author 
did not confine himself to a description of the habits only 
(with the plates illustrating them) of those species which he 
had observed. The work as at present planned is expensive. 
The valuable original observations ought to have been made 
accessible to all ornithologists, and might have been so 
without any loss to science by the omission of what is not 
valuable. If we may make a further criticism, it is that the 
parts should appear at shorter intervals. Part I. was pub- 
lished in February, 1907, Part II. in March, 1908. 


- i FS 
’ ~~ i re es ape + 3 lil a é 
i Lt Ue ee 


A ‘Work on this ‘subject, illuatrated with BEAUTIFULLY. i 

COLOURED PLATES, is now being issued, 

Write for Pall Prospectus and 2a Part for inspection to 

44, Menrletis ‘Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


Naturalists’ Camera, 
j to07_ MODEL, 
F Or Telephoto or Ordinary LENSES. 

~» Lenses are used 
by the most: 
‘oa ae skilled Bird |. 
Photographers. ° 

& ; bs The Pollowing na 
f = ‘ ky spectally recommended : : 

(A Rapid Long Focus Lens at a Moderate Price.) 

ties or Moderate Power Telephoto Lenses (Original Make). 

We are. Specialists in Cameras and Apparatus jor Photo- Ornithologists ais 


JH. DALLMEYER, Limite, eNzIL RD,, i 

Showrooms: 25, NEWMAN Bn Ww. NEASDEN, LONDON, NW. , 


Waturalists, : 
And. Manufacturers of CABINETS and APPARATUS for Entomology, Bird! fees 
and. Skins,’ and all Branches of Natural History. 


Speciality: :-Objects for Nature Study, Drawing Classes, &c. . 


All Books and Publications on Natural History supplied. 

36, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. (Five Doors from Charing Gross.) 

"Catalogue (102 pp.) post free. ana 


Serre BY HH. F. WITHERBY, F.ZS8., M.B.O.U. 
feel) BY W. P. PYCRAFT, A.LS., M.B.0.U. 

ContTENTS OF NUMBER 3, Vor. II. Aveust 1, 1908. 

The Wood-Pigeon Diphtheria: The Results of the ‘‘ BrrrisH 
Birps”’ Enquiry, by C. B. Ticehurst, M.A., M.R.C.S., 

i. B.O.P.,..M.B.0.U., <: « A . Page 69 
Variations in the Nests of ‘he Asciie and Conca Teens: 
by F. B. Kirkman, B.A., oxon. .. 78 

On the More Important Additions to our : Renwiodes of 
British Birds since 1899, by H. F. Witherby and N. F. 

Ticehurst. Part XII. (continued from page 57) .. Ns 83 
Large-billed Reed-Bunting (Emberiza pyrrhuloides palustris) 
in Kent: a new British Bird, by M. J. Nicoll, M.B.o.v. 88 

Notes :—Curious Site for a Robin’s Nest (A. G. Leigh). 
Grey-headed Wagtail in Sussex (J. H. Gurney). 
Nesting of the Grey Wagtail in Berkshire (W. Norman 
May). An Early Recorded Waxwing (H. E. Forrest). 
Lesser Redpolls Nesting in Surrey (Charles Oldham). 
Have Starlings Increased Beyond the Capacity of 
Nesting Sites ? (Fred. A. Herbert). Nutcracker in Kent 
(Eds.). Climbing Movements of the Green Woodpecker 
(Col. H. W. Feilden). Marsh-Harriers in Norfolk (W. P. 
Pycraft). Ducks’ Eggs and Down (Norman Gilroy). 
Inland Nesting of the Sheld-Duck, and Nesting of 
Pochard, Shoveler and Teal in Lincolnshire (Rev. F. L. 
Blathwayt). Nesting of the Shoveler in Staffordshire 
(W. Wells Bladen). Pochard Nesting in South-west 
Kent (Major R. Sparrow). Unusual Nesting Sites and 
Incubation Period of the Tufted Duck (Major H. Trevel- 
yan). Teal and Pheasant Laying in the Same Nest 
(C. E. Pearson). Pallas’s Sand-Grouse in England 
(H. F.W.). Black-tailed Godwit and Spotted Redshank 
in Kent (Major R. Sparrow). Change of Nesting Sites 
Through Human Influence (T. Harrison), etc. .. 90 


Tur Resuuts or THE “ British Brrps” ENQUIRY. 

foe LICHHURST, M.A., M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., M.B.0.U. 

Durine the past autumn and winter Wood-Pigeons in 
this country were ravaged by the disease known as 
‘““Wood-Pigeon diphtheria.” This disease has been 
known for some years by gamekeepers and sportsmen 


as occurring during acorn or beech-mast years, though 
the causa morbi has not been so generally understood. 

In BritisH Brrps (Vol. I., p. 243) I gave an account 
of the micro-organism which was responsible for the 
disease, the naked-eye appearance of birds dead of the 
disease, and other facts as far as were known. In order 
to ascertain more facts concerning this matter, at the 
suggestion of the Editors of BritisH Birps, I drew up 
a schedule of questions which was sent round to all 
readers of the Magazine for the purpose of securing help 
from those who were interested in the subject, and the 
results of this enquiry I now set forth. I must here 
express my great indebtedness to all those who filled 
in schedules, and so kindly supplied the information 
upon which the following conclusions and suggestions 
are based. 

I have thought it better to group the facts under the 
following headings :— 

I.—Geographical distribution. 
II.—Migratory flocks. 
I1I.—Transmission of the disease. 
IV.—Duration and course of the disease. 
V.—Relation to food supply. 
VI.—Transmission to other animals. 
VII.—Post-mortem appearances. 

companying map it will be clear that the reports show 
that the disease was almost entirely confined to those 
counties which border the Thames Valley. The only 
positive returns received from other more distant 
counties were from Yorkshire, Cumberland, Norfolk, 
Essex, and doubtfully from Devon. Now, from all 
these counties the reports seem to show that the 
disease was local, or confined to isolated birds. For 
instance, in Norfolk no disease was noted until the first 
fortnight in February, when only one or two birds with 
disease are recorded, whilst there is definite evidence 
that the only occurrences in Essex were those from a 


migratory flock which arrived in the last week of January, 
stayed a week, and in which nearly every bird was 
diseased. From Cumberland it was reported that there 


GB Positive, many. 
RR Positive, few. 

ie Sporadic cases. 
illlll! Negative. 

“ps p 
~ Notts ;“ Linc? 


We oe 
oS Leicester Vang” Bs 

{J J . 
: semaweat (Hl :. 
fim NA. ne) dar 

as ee! 


eee v 


) _- 

Sketch Map to show the distribution of Wood-Pigeon Diphtheria in 
the Winter of 1907-8, 

were a few diseased birds, but one would have liked to 
have had more details on the distribution in this county. 


From Yorkshire the disease was only noted in two places, 
and those only in single examples, though presumably 
there must have been others. The counties in which the 
disease was most prevalent were: Wiltshire, Buckingham- 
shire (S.), Berkshire (N.), Oxfordshire (8.), and Hampshire ; 
to a lesser degree in West Sussex, West Kent, and Surrey ; 
and it seems undeniable that the centre of the disease 
lay in an area covered by beech wood in the Thames 
Valley in the counties of Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and 
Buckinghamshire, and in one place on the borders of 
these three counties the number of diseased Pigeons 
reached such extraordinary proportions that 2242 were 
burnt, and it is estimated that another 2000 were 
disposed of. From Scotland and Ireland only negative 
reports were received. 

II.—Mieratory Fiocxs.—Nearly all observers agreed 
that the migratory Pigeons arrived at the end of October 
or beginning of November, that they increased in numbers 
during November, and decreased towards the end of 
January, and that by the end of February most of the 
migratory birds had gone. 

These migratory flocks probably come from Central 
Europe, as large migratory flocks appear in Holland in 
the autumn ; it has been often suggested that these flocks 
come from Scandinavia, but as this bird is only found 
in southern Scandinavia, and is not particularly numerous 
there, this theory is untenable. 

That the disease occurred mainly in these migratory 
flocks most observers agreed, some, indeed, asserting that 
the resident birds were never attacked, but this is very 
difficult to prove. 

There is little doubt that the disease was found where 
there was a great increase of Pigeons in the autumn, 
and, as a rule, where there were few birds no disease was 
noted, though in one or two exceptional cases there were 
large numbers and no disease. 

light seems to have been thrown by schedule returns 


on the transmission of the disease. It can easily be 
understood that transmission of a disease from member 
to member in a vast horde, as in any crowded community, 
can take place in a number of different ways. For 
example, the exudation from a diseased bird’s throat 
may easily be “coughed ”’ out (and, as breathing gets 
more difficult, it is natural that it should be), and may 
fall on to the plumage of a neighbouring bird which, in 
turn, preens itself and takes up, of course, the bacilli. 

Another way, which I suggested in Britis Birps, 
was that a diseased Pigeon after eating an acorn re- 
gurgitated it, and this, being picked up by another Pigeon, 
transmitted the bacilli of the disease. This suggestion 
seems to have been quite misunderstood by some people, 
for one writer in the “ Field” shortly afterwards wrote 
to say, that “except at the time they are feeding their 
young, Pigeons do not regurgitate . . . and there 
is no need to assume regurgitation, or to attribute to them 
a habit which has not been observed ’’—which is absurd, 
since if there is any obstruction in the gullet, solid food 
will be regurgitated immediately that obstruction is 

Moreover, I have Mr. A. H. Patterson’s evidence that 
he had a Pigeon sent him by a friend who had shot it, 
and that on the ground where the bird was sitting there 
lay an acorn which it had evidently tried to swallow and 
had regurgitated. 

Both young and old birds are affected, though the 
occurrence of the disease in nestlings requires con- 

definite observations were made on this subject, though 
it was inferred that from the condition of the birds 
that the malady sometimes ran a quick course and 
sometimes a lingering one. 

Through the kindness of Dr. Eyre and Mr. Leeming, 
bacteriologists of Guy’s Hospital, I was enabled to have 
two Pigeons inoculated, and so obtain direct evidence of 


the length and course of the disease. The Pigeons 
inoculated were a wild Wood-Pigeon and a blue “ racer.” 

In both, the inside of the throat was pricked, and some 
‘“membrane ” from a Pigeon dead of the disease was 
rubbed on. The next day both had contracted the disease, 
as manifested by a white spot the size of a pin’s head, 
the neighbouring parts being reddened. These spots 
remained apparently of the same size for about five days, 
the birds feeding and looking well, but at the end of aweek, 
whereas the patch in the Wood-Pigeon had noticeably in- 
creased, that in the blue ‘‘racer”’ had noticeably decreased, 
and by the next day had entirely gone, and the tem- 
perature of this bird, which had risen from 104.8° F. 
(normal) to 107° F. during the period of infection, dropped 
again to its normal. The Wood-Pigeon’s temperature, on 
the other hand (whose normal temperature is 108°), went 
up to and remained between 109° and 110° F. At the end 
of ten days the patch was greatly increased, and by twelve 
days it had extended across the middle of the throat. 
The Pigeon still ate peas and corn fairly well, and kept 
in good feather, but was much thinner. The patch 
continued to grow, and towards the end of the third week 
it had almost blocked the gullet, though it left the wind- 
pipe free. At this time it did not feed so well, and its 
temperature fell to several degrees below normal, and 
remained so until it died on the twenty-first day of the 

The recovery of the blue ‘ racer,” after taking the 
disease, is worthy of note, though from a single obser- 
vation it could not be said that the disease cannot be 
fatal to it, though it suggests that it has a better 
resisting power than has the Wood-Pigeon. 

V.—RELATION TO Foop Suppty.—The idea amongst 
gamekeepers, as well as amongst other people, was that 
the disease was caused by the food supply. Of course, he 
of the beech woods said it was due to the excess of beech- 
mast, whilst he of the oak was equally confident that it 
was due to the plentiful supply of acorns, and they both 


agreed that the disease was prevalent during beech-mast 
or acorn years. ‘This difference of opinion is strong 
evidence that the disease is not directly due to the kind 
of food supply, but due to massing. 

In any crowded community the incidence of a contagious 
disease is always high, and where in a less crowded one 
a disease may be endemic, in a greatly crowded one it 
will become epidemic. This rule applies in no less degree 
to Wood-Pigeons, and it is the abundant food supply 
which accounts for the massing, and the massing which 
favours the spread of the disease. 

From the returns it would appear that where there was 
any disease there was, in most cases, a plentiful supply 
of either acorns or beech-masts, and in a few cases a _ 
plentiful supply of either corn or green crops. 

particular disease is transmissible to other animals seems 
certain, for Loffler, in his orginal researches on this 
micro-organism inoculated, with mild results, fowls and 
rabbits ; guinea-pigs and rats suffered more severely ; 
while Wood-Pigeons and Sparrows succumbed. 

From observations sent in there is little to record. 
Two observers noted the disease in Stock-Doves, one in a 
Tawny Owl, and one or two affirm that they have seen it 
in Pheasants and Partridges. In no case, however, 
were any of these birds sent in for examination bac- 
teriologically, and therefore there must always be some 
doubt as to whether the disease was the same as that 
under consideration. On the other hand, I have made 
several enquiries as regards Pheasants and Partridges 
being affected in quarters where it might be expected, 
‘but have always received a negative answer, and on one 
estate where about 4000 Wood-Pigeons were destroyed 
last winter, and where 3000 Pheasants are shot every year, 
no case of “diphtheria”? in Pheasants had ever been 

The only other evidence I have on this matter is of a 
negative character, namely, that on this same estate 


Rooks, Crows, rats, and ferrets fed largely on the diseased 
Pigeons without apparently contracting the disease ; 
also that numbers were eaten by labourers, etc., without 
any ill effect accruing; but, of course, in the latter case 
the Pigeons were cooked, and this would kill the micro- 

The question has often been asked whether this Pigeon 
disease is the same as diphtheria in the human subject. 
This is an intricate bacteriological subject, and a discussion 
on the pros and cons would be quite out of place here ; 
suffice it to say that the causative bacilli of the two diseases 
are different in character, and as yet there is no proof 
that the characteristics of Bacillus diphtherie columbarum 
change to the characteristics of Bacillus Klebs-Liffler 
(human diphtheria bacillus) on transplantation from the 
Pigeon to the human throat. 

Dr. Sambon, in an interesting paper in the “ Lancet ” 
(April 18th, 1908, p. 1143) on the “ Epidemiology of 
Diphtheria,” in order to account for the increased amount 
of diphtheria on the eastern seaboard (where, as he says, 
Pigeons mass together in the autumn and winter) favours 
the suggestion of the transmissibility of Pigeon diphtheria 
to the human subject. Unfortunately, he takes only the 
deaths from the disease, and not the incidence of the 
disease, which will be found to be quite a different thing. 
Whatever it may have been in the years in which his 
statistics were made up (1855-80), this year, at any rate, 
as I have shown, there was practically no Pigeon disease 
in those counties, the disease being practically confined 
to inland counties bordering the Thames—the very 
counties which he shows to have the lowest diphtheria 
death-rate. The returns for the last nine months from 
these counties are not yet made up, so there are not 
yet any statistics to show whether there has been any 
corresponding rise in the incidence of human diphtheria. 

VII.—Post-MorRTEM APPEARANCES.—The most in- 
variable appearance after death is the presence of a 
cheesy yellow “false membrane ”’ over the hard palate, 


fauces, and base of tongue, and the glands in the neigh- 
bourhood enlarged. The mass is sometimes so large as 
to block entirely the gullet, though it is much rarer to 
find the windpipe pressed on to any extent; the parts 
around the ‘membrane’ are inflamed. With the 
formation of this false membrane death of the underlying 
tissues takes place, even the bones being affected ; thus 
in advanced cases it was common to find the base of the 
skull reduced to a cheesy mass. In a few cases the 
membrane extended down the gullet into the crop, and 
in one instance it had perforated the proventriculus, and 
the bird had died from peritonitis which had resulted. 
In most cases the crop was empty. The condition of 
the birds varied, some being very wasted, others being 
in good condition. Those which had contracted a virulent 
type of the disease, or had a low resisting power, succumbed 
quickly, and so had not time to waste, while those which 
had lingered long with the disease, or had the gullet 
occluded, partially or wholly, were correspondingly thin. 




F. B. KIRKMAN, B.a., oxon. 

In a recent number of BritisH Brrps* Mr. W. P. Pycraft 
contributed a highly stimulating paper on the subject 
of nests, with special reference to those of the Ringed 
Plover. It dealt not only with variation in site and 
material, but also with the origin of the nest-building 

Fic. 1.—Nest of Common Tern. 

instinct. The present paper supplements his observations 
on the first of these two subjects. It is based on the 
examination of some fifty nests of Arctic and Common 
Terns, and will, it is trusted, help to throw further light 
on what is a very obscure problem. 

* Vol. I., pp. 373-380. 


The Arctic Terns’ nests were found, during the summer 
of 1905. in the protected area at the south end of Walney 
Island, off Barrow-in-Furness. I made careful notes of 
thirty, of which thirteen lay on the patches of bare sand 
in between the sandhills, eleven in the shingle patches 
that alternated with the sand, four on the beach, and two 
among the bent, a rough stringy grass growing abundantly 
at Walney, and serving to cord up the wind-made shifting 
sandhills, thus rendering them more or less permanent. 

Fic. 2.—Pebble-paved Nest of Arctic Tern on Beach. 

There were four distinct types of nest with intermediate 
forms. The majority, eighteen in number, representing 
the first type, were made of varying amounts of bent. 
Nearly all these nests proclaimed the individuality of 
their architects. Some consisted of an outer circle of 
bent, the inside being left bare. One, evidently the 
work of a bird with a geometrical turn of mind, showed 
a semi-circle of bent, and a semi-circle of sand, while 
another was adorned with an oyster-shell and a feather, 
if not put there, in any case left unremoved. To some 


bits of wood had been added. In half a dozen instances 
the birds were seemingly content to preserve appear- 
ances by merely placing or leaving two or three quite 
useless stalks of bent around or across the nest. None 
were as complete as the Common Tern’s shown in the 
first of my photographs (Fig. 1). It marks the highest 
form of this type of nest. 

The second type was represented by three nests paved 
with pebbles (Fig. 2). If the use of these pavements 

Fig. 3.—Arctic Tern’s Nest in Sand. 

is to keep the eggs dry by raising them above the level 
of soil liable to become damp, then we must deny the Terns 
in question any sense of the meaning of their acts, for 
their pavements were placed either on loose grit (Fig. 2) 
or on loose sand, through both of which water would 
rapidly sink. How unnecessary the pavement was is 
shown by the third type, represented by two scraped 
depressions in the bare sand. I kept the one shown in 
Fig. 3 under close observation in foul weather and fair, 
and had the pleasure of watching the owner (Fig. 4) hatch 
out both her young successfully. 


The fourth type was of a somewhat transitory nature. 
It was represented by three nests placed on the beach 
in the high-water mark seaweed, the one photographed 
(Fig. 5) being enlivened, accidentally, perhaps, with a 
crab’s claw and a cork. These builders showed more 
originality than discretion, two of the nests being des- 
troyed by the sea: one of the eggs, in an unbroken state, 
going to form part of the stranded drift. 

Fic. 4.—Arctic Tern sitting on Nest in Sand. 

The remaining four nests were highly instructive, being 
a combination of the first two types. They were all 
paved with pebbles, to which bits of bent (Fig. 6*), and in 
one case a complete outer circle of bent, were added. 

It is worth noting that there was no definite relation 
between site and material, except in respect to the two 
nests in the bent, which were made of bent, and those in 
the seaweed. The pebble-paved, the bent nests, and 

* This figure will appear in the second instalment of this article. 


the bare scraped depressions were to be found both among 
the shingle and on the sand patches. 

On referring to the “Manual” of the late Howard 
Saunders, I find that the Arctic Tern, besides laying 
““in- a depression of the sand, or on scanty herbage,” 
will place its eggs ‘‘ on the bare rock, just out of reach of 
the waves.’ Here we have, then, a fifth type, which 
might have been represented at Walney if there had 
been any rocks, 

Fie. 5.—Arctic Tern’s Nest in high-water mark drift. 

The half-dozen nests of the Common Tern that I 
examined at Walney, were, as already noted, of the type 
illustrated by Fig. 1. But the late H. A. Macpherson, 
visiting the place in 1891, has left on record, in his 
‘“‘ Fauna of Lakeland,” that some of these birds, building 
on the upper beach, started a new fashion: their nests 
being lined with rabbit bones. This innovation appears 
to have died out, the rabbits presumably not seeing 
their way to provide the necessary material in adequate 

(To be continued.) 





Pau, XU 
(Continued from page 57.) 

TUFTED DUCK Fuligula cristata (Leach). 8S. page 447. 

SussEx.—Recorded as breeding in the county (J. G. Millais, 
Vict. Hist. Sussex, Vol. I.). 

Hampsuire.—First known to nest in the county in 1890, 
since then its breeding range has rapidly increased, and six 
or seven localities are enumerated where nests have been 
found (J. HE. Kelsall and P. W. Munn, B. of Hants, p. 233 
et seq.). 

SomersET.—Nested at Blagdon Reservoir in 1906 (F. L. 
Blathwayt, Zool., 1908, p. 114). 

Bucxs.—Breeds at Weston Turville (Rothschild and 
Hartert, Vict. Hist. Bucks., p. 146). 

Dersy.—They first began to resort regularly for breeding 
to Osmaston Manor lake in 8.W. Derbyshire, in 1886. Since 
then a brood or two have been reared almost every year, and 
at least two hatched off in 1899. [Now there are seldom fewer 
than seven or eight pairs to be found there in the breeding 
season (F.C. R. J., an litt., 1908).] From Osmaston they have 
spread to neighbouring ponds, where they have bred regularly 
since about 1888. They were observed on the Ashbourne 
Hall pond in 1892, and a pair bred at Sturston Mill in 
1895 (F. C. R. Jourdain, Zool., 1899, p. 476). They have 
also established themselves at Bradley, further to the east 
(id., t.c., 1900, p. 429), and, still more recently, at Norbury 
m 1907 (id., Derby. N.H.S. Journ., 1908). 

STAFFORDSHIRE.— Besides the Weston Park colony referred 
to below, this species first bred at Calwich Abbey in 1906 
(F. C. R. Jourdain, in litt.). 

SHROPSHIRE.—Has bred regularly at Weston Park, on the 
borders of Shropshire and Staffordshire since 1880. Its 
numbers have steadily increased, and in 1890 there were 


about twenty pairs nesting on five or six ponds. At Sandford 
Pool, near Whitchurch, on the Cheshire border, four pairs 
nested in i891, and have continued to do so since, but have 
not increased. One or two pairs have bred since 1855, and 
still do so, at Hatton, near Shifnal (H. E. Forrest, Zool., 
1900, pp. 506 ef seq.). 

NortH Wates.—Breeds in Anglesey, and possibly in 
Merioneth (H. E. Forrest, Vert. Fauna N. Wales, p. 286). 

YORKSHIRE.—Increasing as a nesting species (T. H. Nelson, 
B. of Yorks., p. 467). 

CUMBERLAND.—First bred in 1888 (Zool., 1888, p. 330). 

Scottish BorpER.—Within the last twenty years they 
have begun to nest at nearly every suitable loch, or large sheet 
of water, on either side of the Border, z.e., in Northumberland, 
Berwick, and Roxburgh (A. Chapman, Bird-Life Borders, 
p. 92). 

ScoTLAND.—The increase and extension of range of the 
Tufted Duck in Scotland is one of the most interesting events 
in British ornithology. Mr. J. A. Harvie-Brown has written 
two admirable papers on the subject (Ann. S.N.H., 1896, 
pp. 3-22; Proc. Royal Phys. Soc. Edin., Vol. XIII., pp. 
144-160), and to these all who are interested in the subject 
must make reference. Not many records have been published 
since the date of these papers, but the following may be 
noted :— 

Solway.—Has spread through the area since 1887 until 
now every suitable loch has at least one pair (R. Service, 
Ann. S.N.H., 1897, p. 222). Ayrshire-—A parent bird with 
young was seen on Loch Kilbirnie in 1905 (t.c., 1906, 198). 
Although very common in East Renfrewshire it appears 
slow in spreading to Ayrshire. West Lothian.—Bred in 1906 
and 1907 (S. E. Brock, t.c., 1907, 185); has bred regularly 
in the eastern part of the district for the last ten years (B. 
Campbell, f.c., 1907, 249). Tay Basin.—Has increased 
enormously since the first record of its nesting was reported. 
Now it is ‘‘ one of the commonest ducks on all suitable lochs 
throughout the central and east portions, and just outside the 
S.W. boundary of the area in Forth” (J. A. Harvie-Brown, 
Vert. Fauna Tay Basin, etc., pp. 240 et seq.). 

North of latitude 56° it is rare at all seasons on the west 
coast, but all over the lowlands of Caithness and the extreme 
east of Sutherland it is exceedingly abundant (dem). 

Outer Hebrides.—On the increase ; actual nesting took place 
in South Uist in 1903 (id., Ann. S.N.H., 1903, p. 245). Mac- 
gillivray states that it was formerly a common bird in the 
Outer Hebrides, but it is quite certain that they almost en- 


tirely disappeared for a long time, indeed since he wrote (id., 
Fauna N.W. Highlands, etc., p. 237). Four pairs seen in 
1906, and one in 1907 by N. B. Kinnear and P. H. Bahr 
(Ann. S.N.H., 1907, pp. 83 and 213). 

IRELAND.—Several pairs were seen, and a nest found on 
Lough Conn, co. Mayo, in 1905 (R. Warren, Irish Nat., 1905, 
p. 165). Ten or twelve broods were observed, a young bird 
was shot and an egg taken on Lough Mask, co. Galway, in 
1906 (A. R. Nichols, t.c., 1907, p. 184). Both these records 
are extensions of its previously-known breeding range in 
Ireland. Major A. Trevelyan informs us (7 litt.) that on 
May 13th last he saw a pair on Lough Derg, co. Donegal, in 
which county we believe it has not yet been recorded as 

SCAUP-DUCK Fuligula marila (L.). 8S. page 449. 

SUTHERLAND.—A pair of Scaups was watched, and the 
nest found in rushes five feet from the water, on a small island. 
in a loch in 1899, by Mr. Heatley Noble. The nest contained 
three eggs. It was left for a week, and the female bird was 
then seen to leave the nest and was clearly identified. The: 
nest now contained nine eggs (J. A. Harvie-Brown, Ann. 
S.N.H., 1899, p. 215). 

OvutTER HeEBRipES.—It nested in one of the islands south 
of the Sound of Harris in 1897, 8, and 9, and three pairs in 
1900. Probably also again in 1901, and certainly in 1902 
(J. A. Harvie-Brown, t.c., 1902, p. 211). A nest with nine 
eggs was found on an island in a loch in one of the Uists in 
1906, and the bird was seen to leave its nest (N. B. Kinnear, 
Seton ;y, p. 82;:¢f.. P: H. ‘Bahr, ¢.c:, p. 218). 

The Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain points out that the first 
authentic record of the breeding of the Scaup in Scotland was 
that of the late A. C. Stark, who found a nest with eleven 
egos at Loch Leven, Fifeshire, in 1880 (cf. Proc. Roy. Phys. 
Soc. Hdinb., VII., p. 203). The eggs were sold at Stevens’ 
for £2 7s. 6d. on June 19th, 1902. This record appears to 
have been overlooked by Howard Saunders. 

EIDER DUCK Somateria mollissima (L.). 8S. page 459. 

CHESHIRE.—An immature bird was seen at Leasowe, on 
December 31st, 1905 (C. Oldham, Zool., 1906, p. 75). It is 
rare on the north-west coast of England, and has only once 
before been recorded from Cheshire. 

Scttty IsLEs.—Six examples are recorded (J. Clark and 
F. R. Rodd, t.c., 1906, p. 304). 

ScorLaAND.—Previously unknown on the west coast of 


Sutherland, they were present in large numbers in 1901 and 
1902, and perhaps for a few years before in every suitable 
place from Cape Wrath to Hansa and the Badcall Islands. A 
large increase is also noted along the eastern side of South 
Uist. Eider are only now (1904) beginning to push their 
distribution to any points between Loch Nevis and Badceall 
(7.e., W. Ross, and parts of Sutherland and Inverness) (J. A. 
Harvie-Brown, Fauna N.W. Highlands and Skye, pp. 244-248). 

IRELAND.—A young male was shot in Malahide Estuary, 
on the Dublin coast, in November, 1902 (E. Williams, [rish 
Nat., 1903, p. 112). To Ireland the Eider is a rare and 
irregular winter visitor. 

KING-EIDER Somateria spectabilis (L.). S. page 461. 

FIFESHIRE.—A male was shot on a moor in Fifeshire on 
June 15th, 1899 (B. B. Riviere, Zool., 1902, p. 27). 
OrkNEY.—An adult female was shot by Mr. 8. Sutherland 
off Graemsay, on February 21st, 1906 (F. Smalley, ¢.c., 1906, 
5 Istay.—One was observed by Mr. A. Ross near Kintra 
on July 25th, 1906 (Ann. S.N.H., 1907, p. 198). 
IRELAND.—A mature male was shot on November 10th, 
1897, in the Foreland Bay, off Donaghadee, co. Down, by 
Mr. W. H. Shaw (R. Patterson, Jrish Nat., 1901, p. 50). 
JERSEY.—Mr. H. Mackay states that he examined a female 
bird, and identified it as a King-Eider, which had been shot 
at La Roque. He gives no date (H. Mackay, Zool., 1904, p. 

COMMON SCOTER Cdemia ngra (L.). 8S. page 465. 

TRELAND.—Major H. Trevelyan communicated to the 
‘“« Wield ” (15, vir., 05) an account of the nesting of this bird 
on one of the larger loughs in Ireland, the exact locality 
being suppressed. Between June llth and August 18th, 
1904, a pair of birds were constantly observed. On May 24th, 
1905, the pair were again observed in the same locality, and 
on June 13th the female was found on the nest under a small 
bush on an island. There were eight eggs, five of which 
hatched between June 28th—30th, and the old bird was seen 
on the lough with the five young ones on July Ist. One of 
the young was obtained on July 3rd, and afterwards 
submitted, with an egg and some of the down from the nest, 
to Dr. Bowdler Sharpe, who confirmed the identification. 
The egg, down, and feathers from the nest, and the young 
bird, were also submitted to Mr. Heatley Noble, who likewise 
confirmed the identification (Irish Nat., 1905, p. 200). It is 


much to Major Trevelyan’s credit that he was thus able to 
authenticate this most interesting discovery of the first 
nesting of this species in Ireland without the destruction of 
the parent birds. The birds bred again in 1906 (R. J. Ussher 
in litt.). 

In 1907 one male and two females were observed on the 
lough, but no nest was found. On June 4th, 1908, a nest 
with eight eggs was found well concealed in a furze bush on 
an island in the same lough, and this year also there appeared 
to be a second and solitary female (H. Trevelyan, Field, 4, vit., 
08, p. 3). 

SURF-SCOTER Gdemia perspicillata (L.). 8S. page 469. 

Scrtty Istes.—Has been obtained twice (J. Clark and F. 
R. Rodd, Zool., 1906, p. 304). 

CoRNWALL.—An adult male was killed with two Velvet 
Scoters on the Helford River on December 16th, 1906 (J. 
Clark, i.c., 1907; p. 285). 

ORKNEY.—Young birds are of commoner occurrence than 
most people suppose, hardly a winter passes without one or 
more being seen among the Velvet-Scoters when they first 
arrive. The adult birds are much rarer. An adult male 
was seen inside Stromness Harbour between December 14th 
and 21st, 1905 (H. W. Robinson, Field, 17, 11., 06). 

GOOSANDER Mergus merganser L. S. page 471. 

ScoTLAND.—A pair was identified off the north end of 
North Uist on October 31st, 1905 (A. Elfrish, Ann. S.N.A., 
1906, p. 53). A male was seen off Barra on May 22nd, 1906 
(N. B. Kinnear, ¢.c., 1907, p. 83). The bird is of rare occur- 
rence in the Outer Hebrides. 

SMEW WMergus albellus L. 8S. page 475.—An adult male was shot on Breydon on January 
30th, 1907 (B. Dye, Zool., 1907, p. 111). Adult males are rare. 

YorRKSHIRE.—An adult was shot at Skelton in the winter 
ot 1900 (‘T. H. Nelson, Birds of Yorks., p. 486). 

SHETLAND.—One was shot on February 14th, 1901, at 
Sconsburgh (Ann. S.N.H., 1902, p. 134). It is a rare visitor 
to the Shetlands. 

(To be continued.) 

( 88 ) 


M. J. NICOLL, M.B.0.Uv. 

At the meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Club, held 
on June 17th last, I exhibited a male specimen of the 
South European Large-billed Reed-Bunting (Hmberiza 
pyrrhulo des palustris). 

This bird, which is new to the British fauna, was 
obtained near Lydd, in Kent, on May 26th last. I was 
away from home at the time it was shot, and was thus 
unable to see it in the flesh, but I examined it shortly 
after it was mounted. 

The occurrence of this Reed-Bunting in the British 
Islands is of interest, not only on account of its being a 
new British bird, but also because the commoner and 
typical H. p. pyrrhuloides is the form one would expect 
to occur in England, as it has done so on Heligoland. 

The example obtained in Kent agrees exactly with 
specimens in the British Museum from South Italy, in 
which country, as well as in Southern France and Spain, 
the bird is resident. It may be distinguished at once 
from the common Reed-Bunting by its large thick bill. 

The typical form of the Thick-billed Reed-Bunting 
inhabits the coasts of the Caspian Sea from the foot of 
the North Caucasus to the Volga, Transcaspia and 
Turkestan, and has occurred once on Heligoland. In 
coloration the former is very much paler, the broad white 
edges to the feathers of the upperparts, and the pale 
grey rump, give the bird an almost silver-grey appearance: 
a great contrast to the more sober coloration of the 
bird obtained in Kent. 

It is somewhat difficult to account for the appearance 
of some South European birds in the British Islands. 
The present species and all other stragglers which have 


occurred, may have joined parties of other species, and 
thus found their way to our shores. 

In the autumn southerly gales may be the cause of 
the visitation of rare Chats and other birds. But some 
have occurred in our islands during the height of the 

Male Large-billed Reed-Bunting obtained near Lydd, Kent, 

on May 26th, 1908. 
summer, and these visitations can, I think, only be 
accounted for by the supposition that these birds had 
lost their mates, or that their nesting had been interfered 
with in some way, and that, following the migratory 
“impulse,” they had pushed northwards and_ thus 
reached the British Islands, far to the north of their 
usual limit. 


Rosins have frequently been recorded as nesting in curious 
places, but I do not think they have been known to choose 
such a remarkable site as the following. A pair relined an 
old Blackbird’s nest, situated in a thorn bush, four feet from 
the ground, with moss, and were successful in hatching a 

brood. A. G. LEIGH. 

[The Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain writes :—‘‘ The habit of 
breeding in old nests of other species is common in the case of 
the Pied Wagtail and occasional in the Tits, Spotted Flycatcher, 
and other birds. The habit is, however, rarely recorded of 
the Robin. I have a note of one found in an old Swallow’s 
nest, and one in an old Hedge-Sparrow’s nest is recorded 
by Mr. J. E. Harting (Birds of Middlesex, p. 38).” In a list 
of such occurrences published in the “ Zoologist”’ (1905, 
p. 33), Mr. R. H. Read records a Robin’s nest in a Thrush’s 
nest, and three nests of the Robin one over the other, the top 
one containing eggs and the middle one stale eggs of the 
previous season. Mr. T. T. Mackeith also records (t.c., p. 69) 
a Robin’s nest built upon a Swallow’s nest of the previous year. 
Many instances of other birds utilizing the old nests of other 
species are on record.—EDs. ] 


In the spring of 1869 or 1870 a Grey-headed Wagtail was 
shot at Lancing, in Sussex, not far from the sea, which has, I 
am sorry to say, remained until now unidentified. Having, 
at the request of Mr. Witherby, submitted it to Mr. N. F. 
Ticehurst, that gentleman writes: “It is In my opinion 
undoubtedly M. f. borealis. . .. . It is not nearly white 
enough on the throat, and is too dark on the head for 
M. f. cinereicapilla. It is even darker on the head than most 
of my M. f. borealis, but I take it that is due to wear.” 



On June 13th I noticed a pair of Grey Wagtails (Motacilla 
melanope) close to one of the locks on the Kennet and Avon 
Canal. After a very short search I found their nest (empty, 
but apparently ready for eggs) in the broken woodwork of the 

NOTES. 91 

side of the lock. On June 18th the nest was visited by the 
keeper, and found to contain four eggs. On June 24th I 
again visited the place, but unfortunately a barge had been 
through the lock in the meantime, and the nest had been 
swamped and the eggs washed away. A careful search in 
the hole behind the nest showed one broken shell, while the 
birds were still near by. The nest was so placed, that when 
the lock was filled (in order to enable a barge to pass) it must 
have been quite three feet under water. 

Mr. Heatley Noble records a nest in the “ Victoria History 
of Berkshire,” while I believe another one has been found 
more recently by Mr. F. C. Selous, near Newbury. 

W. Norman May. 


Tue following extract from a letter which I have lately 
received from Mr. R. D. Roberts, of St. Asaph, North Wales, 
should prove of interest because it refers to one of the first 
Waxwings recorded as visiting this country, and it is re- 
markable that the specimen, although now 120 years old, 
should still be in good condition. Mr. Roberts writes: ‘‘ The 
quotation in your ‘ Vertebrate Fauna of North Wales’ from 
Pennant’s ‘ British Zoology,’ under the heading ‘ Waxwing ’ 
(page 130), is interesting to me inasmuch as the bird referred 
to is in my possession, and though shot in 1788 is in perfect 
condition. The account on the back of the case being nearly 
illegible through age I recently had copies printed, and 
enclose one.” The label reads as follows :— 

Bohemian Chatterer or Waxwing. 
(Bombycilla Garrula.) 

Kill’d during the cold Frost in December, 1788, at Garth- 
Meilio, in the County of Denbigh, by Mr. William Dod, 
of Edge, in Cheshire. 

It was perching in one of the Fir Trees in the Avenue to 
the House. 

H. E. Forrest. 


DurinG a couple of hours spent among the birch trees on 
Wimbledon Common on July 12th, I saw a nest of a Lesser 
Redpoll (Linota rufescens), in a small birch, with four well- 
fledged young ones, another brood on the wing, and at least 
five pairs of old birds. Indeed, on this July morning, when 
but few birds were singing, the Redpolls uttering their 
characteristic call-notes, as they passed from place to place 


with undecided, wavering flight, high above the tree-tops, 
were the outstanding feature in the bird-life of the common. 

[For former records of the Lesser Redpoll nesting on 
Wimbledon Common and in other places in Surrey, see Vol. L., 
p. 184.—H. F. W.] 


Late last year two packs of Starlings of about 1000 each 
took possession of a young larch plantation near Ross, 
Herefordshire. Every evening the numbers increased until 
it was impossible to make any estimate of them, but to give 
some idea, I saw on one occasion a field of about four acres 
so covered with them that it was difficult to see any soil at 
all. Their movements, as night drew near, were a source 
of great interest to me. At times they would wheel for 
half-an-hour in the air, each battalion independent of the 
other ; at others they would settle in high trees and maintain 
a ceaseless chattering ; while, once or twice, being apparently 
still hungry, they would settle on ploughed ground and busily 
search for food. 

The majority have distributed and paired, but there are 
still a number of small packs, ten to twenty in each, which 
pass my house every night on their way to roost, and I have 
noticed for the last three years that many remained unpaired. 
These are neither old birds which have done nesting, for as 
yet (June 7th) I have seen no young birds abroad ; nor are 
they for the same reason young birds. What, then, is the 
reason for these bachelor habits ? 

It cannot be that there are greater numbers of either sex, 
because Nature’s balance is very even ; nor can it be that they 
do not breed until the second season. 

Is it possible that there are not enough suitable nesting 
places for so many ? 



In Vol. I., p. 388, we referred to a Nutcracker which had been 
reported by Mr. N. F. Richardson as having been shot in Kent 
on December 29th, 1907. On page 28 of the present volume 
Mr. G. M. Beresford-Webb suggested that this might have 
been a bird which escaped from his aviaries. Mr. Richardson 
has very kindly submitted the bird, with full particulars, 
to Mr. Beresford-Webb for examination, and that gentleman 

NOTES. 93 

writes us that “as far as it is possible to see the bird appears 
to be similar to the one which escaped.” It was shot only 
six miles from Mr. Beresford-Webb’s house, and three days 
after his bird had escaped, and little doubt remains that it 
was in fact his bird and not a wild one.—Eps. 


THIS season a pair of Green Woodpeckers (Gecinus viridis) 
made a hole in a decaying cherry tree in the orchard next our 
garden, in the village of Burwash. I could, from a garden 
seat, watch them within fifty yards. The hen bird appeared 
to be sitting by the middle of May. The male bird was 
constantly bringing his mate food, and would fix himself 
on the trunk for ten minutes at a time, partly supporting 
itself by the stiff pointed tail-feathers, his head just level 
with the orifice opening into the nesting-hole, often uttering 
his plaintive cry. The female would now and again come up 
and greet him by putting out her bill through the opening 
hole. Unfortunately the orchard became the scene of carpet- 
beating operations, which disturbed the Woodpeckers, and 
in the intervals of absence a pair of Starlings commenced 
an attack, and by rapidly throwing in bits of foreign material, 
made the hole untenantable for the Woodpeckers, who 
consequently deserted it. The late Professor Newton, in the 
“History of British Birds” (Vol. II., p. 458), remarks in a 
footnote that “‘ Selby says he had repeatedly seen it descend 
trees by moving backward. The editor has not been so 
fortunate, though he thinks he must have enjoyed more 
frequent opportunities of observing the bird.” I can confirm 
this statement of Selby; the male bird of the pair I allude to 
searched the bark of the decaying cherry tree in which the 
hole was placed, with great assiduity. On reaching a sufficient 
elevation it would descend backward with as great rapidity 
as in its ascension. I was so close to the birds on many 
occasions, that with the aid of glasses, I saw that during the 
backward descent the points of the tail-feathers were kept 
about an inch off the bark of the tree, though the tail and. 
back retained the curve, associated with the ascending bird. 



Durine a short stay in “ Broad-land” recently I had the 
good fortune to have under observation for some considerable 
time first a single specimen, and a day or two later a pair, 


of that handsome bird the Marsh-Harrier (Circus wruginosus). 
I shall never forget the majestic wheeling flight of these birds 
as they quartered the ground in search of prey. The exact 
locality it will perhaps not be wise to name for the present, 
but of the identity of the birds there can be no doubt. 

W. P. PycraArt. 


I HAVE read with considerable interest Mr. Noble’s article 
on Ducks in the June issue of BririsH Brrps. In the main 
I am in entire agreement with his remarks, especially as regards 
the futility of attempting to identify by the down alone. 
I take slight exception, however, to his remarks on the 
Gadwall. I have observed, perhaps, a dozen nests of this 
species in Norfolk, and in two cases at least there are numerous 
white feathers which are indistinguishable from those of 
the Wigeon, and which, in conjunction with precisely similar 
down and precisely similar eggs, render identification 
extremely difficult. 

I have seen the cream-coloured variety in eggs of the Pintail, 
but I wonder if Mr. Noble has come across the variety where 
the eggs are as vivid a green as those of the Golden-eye. As 
regards downless Pochards’ and Mallards’ nests, my experience 
of the former is small, being confined to one locality, where 
the nests are always floating structures, and down is not 
abundant, but I have found, perhaps, half-a-dozen Mallards’ 
nests built close to water, and amongst thick sedge, which were 
without a particle of down. 


[The Editors have kindly allowed me a view of the above 
note from Mr. Norman Gilroy. Doubtless the number of 
proprietors over whose estates Mr. Gilroy has leave to prosecute 
his investigations is larger than those who have extended a 
like permission to myself; in any case, I cannot lay claim 
to having examined so many nests of the Gadwall as Mr. 
Gilroy has. I have seen white feathers in Gadwalls’ nests, 
but in my opinion they are not typical, and as the object of 
the article was identification, they were excluded. I have 
not yet seen a nest containing only white feathers, and were I 
to find such a nest, I should consider it necessary to procure 
the female bird before identification could be established. 
Some of the patterned feathers have always been present in 
the nests I have examined, and it is these feathers which give 
the key to the solution—HratLEey NOBLE. | 

NOTES. 95 


In answer to Mr. Southwell’s question about the Sheld-Ducks 
on Twig Moor, Lincolnshire (supra, p. 62), I may say with 
confidence that the birds breed there. On May 22nd, 1907, 
I saw five or six pairs there, evidently breeding ; and again 
on June 2nd, 1908, several birds were on the ponds, and a 
brood of ducklings had just been hatched off. The Sheld-Duck 
has also nested on the Gull-ponds on Scotton Common, six 
miles south-west of Twig Moor, and a pair or two perhaps do 
so every year. I have seen young in all stages there, and on 
June 22nd, 1903, there was a brood only a few days old, some 
of which I managed to catch in my hands, but quickly released. 
This species is very common on the Somerset coast, near 
Burnham and Weston-super-Mare; in winter I have seen 
more than five hundred on the sea in one flock, and hundreds 
nest among the sand dunes in the neighbourhood. The water- 
bailiff of Blagdon Reservoir, about ten miles from the 
Somerset coast, states that a pair remained to nest there a 
few years ago. He is a most intelligent observer, and is not 
likely to have been mistaken. I may mention also that 
several pairs of Pochards breed on the Twig Moor Gull-ponds, 
and I saw quite young broods both in 1907 and 1908. A 
good number of Teal and Shovelers breed on Scotton Common, 
a fact which I can state from personal observation, having 
found their nests and seen their young broods there on several 
occasions during the last few years. 

F. L. Buatuwayt. 

[Mr. Clifford Borrer has also written to us to the same effect 
as the above.—EDs. | 


Earzy in April, 1908, Mr. R. C. Thomas, of Bloxwich, told 
me that some Shovelers (Spatula clypeata) (at first two 
drakes and a duck) were on a “‘ swag ’’—a piece of water 
formed by subsidence of land caused by mining operations— 
at one of their collieries. The one on which the Shovelers 
were seen is about an acre in extent, and is adjacent to a 
coal-pit, which is not now worked. On May 12th Mr. Thomas 
found the nest, which then contained six eggs, built in a 
depression, about fifty yards from the “swag.” When on 
the nest the duck drew towards herself the tall grasses growing 
near, and thus formed a kind of canopy, a small opening being 
left at the side nearest the water. There is a footpath near, 


and, at this time, she took no notice of anyone passing by 
unless they stopped to look at her, when she hurriedly left 
the nest, ran a few yards, and took flight to the “ swag.” 

On May 17th the clutch of ten eggs was completed, and on 
May 28th I accompanied Mr. Thomas to see the b rds and their 
nest. As we approached the place my friends told me that 
it was uncertain whether we should see the drake, as he some- 
times disappeared for a whole day; however, to our great 
delight, we found the beautiful bird on the water. We had 
cautiously approached within some forty yards, when he 
rose and flew behind the “ pit-bank ” at the south side of the 
“swag.” Our attention was next directed to the duck, 
which hastily took to flight when we were within a yard of 
the nest. The grass had grown very much and now completely 
hid it. There were ten eggs—of a greenish-cream colour, 
much soiled—laid on dried grasses and down, and not 
covered—perhaps owing to our arrival at the nest being rather 
sudden. We then walked on to another “swag,” nearly three 
acres in extent, and about five hundred yards away. Here men 
were loading coal from “ pit-tubs”’ into carts, on a wharf, 
close to which, in company with a number of domestic ducks, 
were the Shovelers. Although they had apparently taken no 
notice of the men who were at work, on our arrival they 
instantly took flight, fortunately only to the other side of 
the “swag.” Very quietly we walked to the shelter of a tree, 
from which we watched the birds for a considerable time, during 
which they left the water and preened their feathers on the 
opposite bank. 

On June 9th the ten eggs hatched out safely, after an in- 
cubation of twenty-four days, and the same day a second 
drake put in an appearance, but, after a fight, was driven off. 
The Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain, whom I told of this occur- 
rence, informs me that a pair of Shovelers had bred at Wyrley 
Grove, which is two miles from the locality of the nest I have 
described, in 1906 and 1907; from inquiries I have since 
made I find there has not been a nest there this year. 

The best thanks of Staffordshire ornithologists are due to 
the Messrs. Thomas, who were draining the “swag” when 
the Shovelers were first noticed, and who instantly stopped 
operations when they found that they were nesting. They 
have since taken every precaution that the birds should not 
be disturbed. 


On May 16th I was punting with a friend in Romney Marsh 

NOTES. 97 

along a wide dyke, which ran along one side of a bed of high 
reeds. On nearing anangle of the reed bed I noticed a female 
Pochard (Fuligula ferina) swimming hurriedly away as if 
she had just left her nest. I got out of the punt and searched 
the corner of the reed bed, when I very soon discovered the 
nest containing seven young Pochards, just hatched, one 
duckling being not yet dry. While examining and trying 
to photograph the nest the duck flew round quite close, so I 
was certain of her identity. The nest was about eighteen inches 
high, composed of pieces of dry reed, and had practically 
no down or feathers in it; in fact, except for the ducklings 
and the broken eggshells, one might have supposed that the 
nest was that of a Coot. 

R. Sparrow. 


On June 17th, 1908, I found on a small island rock a nest of 
a Tufted Duck (Fuligula cristata) in a water-worn crevice, 
having cover from all sides except the south, with an over- 
hanging rock giving partial cover from above. The nest was 
made of dry rush, grass, moss, and a few green fern leaves ; 
there were five eggs, on which the bird was sitting, but there 
was little, if any, down. 

On June 20th, 1908, on a wooded island, I found a Tufted 
Duck’s nest among bushes, with a dead branch overhanging 
one side of it. South-west of it was a rock ; north of it a large 
stone ; east of it a small stone; to the south of it a sallagh, 
probably Salix caprea. ‘The floor of the nest was made of 
dead leaves, the sides of it were almost entirely of down, with 
a very few dead leaves and small dead twigs, and the occur- 
rence of these two latter may have been accidental. As at 
the bottom of the nest there was the skin of an egg, it seems 
probable the site had been used before. There were ten eggs. 
I have by no means infrequently found the nest of this species 
under bushes, but I do not remember one placed as this one 
was, right inside a covert. 

There is no doubt birds adapt themselves to their surround- 
ings, but it seems curious that they should select an unusual 
site without immediately at hand the usual materials for a.’ 
nest, when plenty of such ground is to be found close by. 

On May 29th last on a lake island in Ireland I found a 
nest of the Tufted Duck with eight eggs. I am all but certain 
I put the bird off it, but the one egg I took from the nest 
when blown showed no trace of incubation. I replaced, within 


a few minutes, this egg with one of a domestic Duck. At 
some time subsequent. to this, and prior to June 22nd, I 
visited the nest and found her sitting on eight eggs, 7.e., seven 
of her own and the one of the domestic Duck. On July Ist 
my boatman visited the nest and found her sitting on five 
eggs only, z.e., two of her own had gone as also the one of the 
tame Duck. On July 5th, on visiting the nest, he found the 
eggs had hatched out. Needless to say, I do not consider 
these observations by any means crucial, but the evidence, 
such as it is, points in the direction of the incubation period 
of the Tufted Duck being more than twenty-three days. 

On June 16th, on a small lake island, I found a Tufted 
Duck’s nest with sixteen eggs. One egg was on the top of the 
other fifteen, they were warm and evidently being incubated. 



I mer with rather a curious case of a mixed clutch of eggs a 
few days ago which may be worth recording, viz., a nest 
with both Teal’s and Pheasant’s eggs. Both birds laid in one 
nest, but when I saw it the Teal was in possession, sitting 
very close. CHARLES E. PEARSON. 

[A number of records show that in the case of Game-birds 
and Ducks “joint”? clutches of eggs are by no means rare.— 

H. F.W.] 

AN invasion of Pallas’s Sand-Grouse (Syrrhaptes paradoxus) 
into this country was not unexpected since the bird appeared 
numerously in European Russia in the latter half of April, 
and has been reported from several parts of Germany 
(cf. Orn. Monats., 1908, pp. 100 and 132). The following 
have been reported in England :—Yorkshire-——Three flying 
high between Burley and Ilkley on May 20th (“‘ Lichen Grey,” 
Country Life, 13, v1., 08). Hampshire.—Five, said to be of 
this species, were seen near East Liss about the middle of 
April (“ M.I.,” Feld, 20, v1.,08). Five were clearly identified 
by Mr. A. O. Lyon, near Burley, New Forest, early in August 
(in litt.). Two were seen flying N.E. over Havant on July 8th 
(B. Roper, t.c., 18, vu. 08). Berkshire.-—One was picked up 
near the River Kennet on June 6th (H. D. Astley, t.c., 20, 
vu., O08). Hssex—A pair was seen several times near 
Southend-on-Sea in the last week of June (J. Seabrooke, 
t.c., 4, vir., 08). Surrey.—Three were observed at Holmwood 
on June 28th (L. Mortimer, l.c.). Norfolk.—Two were seen 
at Brancaster on June 28th (F. H. Partridge, /.c.).—H. F. W. 

NOTES. 99 


On May 12th last I was walking alongside a “fleet” in 
Romney Marsh when a bird which was strange to me rose from 
the edge of some shallow water. I at once got my binoculars 
on to it, and by the long straight bill, white wing-bar and white 
rump and light brown back, I identified it as a Black-tailed 
Godwit (Limosa belgica), and from its size I should say it 
was a female. It flew some distance, and I thought I had 
marked it down, but on going to the spot I failed to flush it 
again. On the 16th I visited the same ground, but did not 
see the Godwit, so it had evidently continued its migration. 
The same evening my attention was called to a strange bird 
flying overhead by hearing a whistle something like that of 
a Redshank. For a moment [thought it was a Golden Plover 
with black breast, but on looking at it through my glasses, I 
noticed it flew very like a Common Redshank, and had a beak 
as long as a Redshank, and was black all over, with white 
speckles. I at once decided it was a male Spotted Redshank 
(Totanus fuscus) on migration. 


Last January the Black-headed Gull was removed from the 
list of egg-protected birds. As a consequence its regular 
nesting-places were raided by collectors of eggs for local 
consumption, or for despatch to London as Plovers’ eggs, 
and the result was that the birds, seeking fresh quarters, 
formed two new colonies on Wedholme Flow and Rockliffe 
Marsh, near Carlisle. The Redshank has been subjected to 
similar persecution. At one time the commonest of our 
shore-birds, its numbers suffered such depletion that it was 
put on the list of egg-protected birds by the Cumberland 
County Council. On the marshes in North Lancashire its 
egos have been largely gathered for substitution as Plovers’ 
eggs in the metropolitan market, and the result has been a 
notable exodus of the birds to the Yorkshire dales for security, 
In the neighbourhood of Bentham, as Mr. Murdoch, a capable 
naturalist, reports, Redshanks have been nesting freely, and 
in a Yorkshire dale several miles further inland I have noticed 
a remarkable development. With the sequestered and 
beautiful dale named Kingsdale, I have been familiar from 
boyhood, and have fished its trout stream for more than fifty 
years. I can vouch for it that such a bird as a Redshank 


was never seen in that dale until very recent years. Five 
years ago there was, to my surprise, a pair of the birds; 
at the beginning of June this year Redshanks were so 
numerous and noisy as to produce the illusion that I was 
on a Cumberland marsh. The addition to the avian life 
of the dale was very pleasing. 

T. Harrison. 

* * 

LesseR ReppPott Nesting In Mippuesex.—Lt.-Col. H. 
Meyrick records that he has found two nests of the Lesser 
Redpoll (Linota rufescens) on Hampstead Heath this year, 
and that he suspected them of breeding there last year (Zool., 
1908, p. 227). 

LirrLE Ow. IN WILTSHIRE.—An example of Athene noctua 
was shot near Avebury in November, 1907, and is now in the 
Marlborough College Museum (Rep. Marl. Coll. N.H. Soc., 
1908, p. 76). This may be a forerunner of a still greater 
extension of this bird in a south-westerly direction from 
Lilford than has yet been traced (cf. ante, Vol. I., p. 335 
et seq.), or it may have been liberated locally. The members 
of the College Natural History Society would do well to make 
a search for the Little Owl in the neighbourhood. 

Scops OwL IN CUMBERLAND.—A specimen of a Scops Owl 
(Scops giu) is reported by Mr. P. W. Parkin (in whose 
possession the bird is) to have been shot on November 6th, 
1907, at Broomrigg, near Armathwaite, by Captain W. H. 
Parkin (Field, 13, vi., 08, p. 982). 

BITTERN IN YORKSHIRE.—A Common Bittern (Botaurus 
stellaris) was seen by the watcher at Kilnsea, Holderness, 
Yorkshire, on May 6th last (R. Fortune, Nat., 1908, p. 202). 

GADWALL IN SOMERSET.—A male was shot near Bridgwater 
on February 10th, 1908 (H. Whistler, Field, 20, v1., 08,p. 1030). 

Woop - Picton Nesting oN A Hovse.—TIwo Wood- 
Pigeons are said by Mr. F. Mansell to have nested and reared 
their young on a window-sill in Highbury this year (Field, 
20, vi., 08, p. 1030). 

Williams writes to the “ Irish Naturalist ”’ (1908, pp. 119-122) 
that protection has greatly increased the Gulls and Terns in 
co. Dublin. At Malahide Island the numbers of Common 
and Arctic Terns nesting is described as being incalculable. 
This colony a few years ago numbered only a couple of pairs. 
A rough idea of the number of birds at the present time is 
given by the fact that Mr. Williams counted 211 nests, but 
his search was by no means exhaustive. 

Vol. IL 

4 1908. No. 4. 

i  Mogmuly oe sme ‘NET 

1 “1 . 7 ~} 
et ‘ i PA! Bind Poke 
=e 4 ‘ oT | {3 RECA Se 


A Work on this subject, ‘illustrated with BEAUTIFULLY. Tee | 
| COLOURED PLATES, is now being sprig en | 

_ Write nie Fult Prospectus and a Part ‘fie inspection to 

44, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W. Gu 


Natu ralists’ Camera, 
-4907- MODEL, 

For thas ih or Oninaly LENSES. oe | 


Lenses are wel ac! 

by the test 
ee skilled Bird ‘ i We 
eat caes Bec 


The fllviher are. : 
specially recowtneniteds 1 

THE STIGMATIC SERIES. ll. F/6 (Convertible) 
(A Rapid Long Focus Lens at a Moderate Price.) 

“High or Moderate Power Telephoto Lenses (Original Make). ees 
We are Specialists in Cameras and Apparatus jor Photo Orit : ao | 



Showrooms: 25, NEWMAN sm, Ww. “NEASDEN, LONDON, Nike 


And. Manufacturers of CABINETS and APPARATUS for Entomataey: Birds! Fag 
and ‘Skins, and all Branches. of Natural History. 

Speciality :—Obiects for Nature Study, Drawing Classes, &c. 

TRUE TO NATURE. phge D iy 

All Books and Publications on Natural History’ supplied. 

36, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. (five Doors: from hcg Gry) 

Catalogue (ro2 PP) post Sree hy 

ey ee 


* Xe = 

W Oo & + 
Se ge 5 : 
eS eG eee 

e < 3 Be ae ES 3 : 
Sek gt Ae a3 8 2 |B 
2 hee, .. i oi 
o z as < E 
ie nH § : 

¢ Rx aS x = 
= oe 5 


ii — =a ( WEE; 

=a ir W<«K KK (it 
. ITO Kua QQ \ \ 


"4 oe \ cute) 
a Nea nC a rll ttiert Saute eet MUAY a et MIN \ 
“ae . 5 e a. ee co Ss LQ RA ak So 3 
= : SEES ul at er 





With an Introduction by 

Her Grace the DUCHESS of BEDFORD 

Many Illustrations. Stiff Boards, 1s. 6d. net. 

NESTING | Nesting Boxes | 


c ens ainox | THIS BOOK WILL APPEAL. 

-@ It is a practical guide for all who wish to attract the birds 
to their doors and induce them to nest in their gardens, 

whether large or small. 3 oy 

ie q It shows that these birds are most useful in keeping down 
the insect pests which are so harmful to trees and shrubs. 

_ @ In this connection also the attention of Municipal and Urban 

- Councils may be drawn to the advantages which would | 

| accrue to trees and plants from the use of nesting a 2 
for birds in Public Parks and open spaces. ¢: 

_ @ The methods described are simple but efficient, They are 
’ the outcome of a lifetime of study and experiment by one 
‘? of the greatest of bird-lovers—the Baron von Berlepsch. 

died orgs 

London: WITHERBY & CO., 326, High Holeti, 




i | 

3 : € 



(uewy4ly ‘g ‘yf Aq paydessojoyd) 

'€ ‘Id “1 19A “Sda/d HSILIAd 


SorrrED GY" HH: F. WITHERBY, F.Z.5.; M.B.0.U. 

ConTENTS OF NuMBER 4, Vou. II. SrpremBer 1, 1908. 

Variation in the Nests of the Arctic and Common Terns, 

by F. B. Kirkman, B.A., Oxon. ee Ill.) (Continued 

from page 82) ais «Page: 101 
Some Early British Geniwelogists amd eis works: by 

W. H. Mullens, m.a., LL.M., M.B.0.U. IIL. —Christopher 

Merrett (16141695) is 109 

Bird Roosts and Routes, by Bruce F. Giiminge ae 119 

On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of 

British Birds since 1899, by H. F. Witherby and N. F. 

Ticehurst. Part XIII. (continued from page 87) a 125 
Notes :—Pied Wagtail Rearing Three Broods (E. G. B. Meade- 

Waldo). On the British Bullfinch (Dr. Ernst Hartert): 

How a Cuckoo Deposited her Egg (Owen Ephraim). 

Tufted Duck in Scotland (Wm. Eagle Clarke). Stark’s 

Record of the Breeding of the Scaup-Duck at Loch 

Leven (William Evans). The Distribution of the 

Common Scoter in Scotland (J. A. Harvie-Brown). 

Pallas’s Sand-Grouse in Yorkshire and Kent (T. H. 

Nelson, H. G. Alexander). Green-Backed Gallinule in 

Norfolk (Rev. M. C. H. Bird). Abnormal Eggs of the 

Ringed Plover (Major H. Trevelyan). Pebble Nest of 

a Ringed Plover (Com. H. Lynes, R.N.). Lapwing’s 

Nest with Five Eggs (Col. R. H. Rattray). Solitary 

Sandpiper and other Waders in Kent (The Duchess of 

Bedford). A Hitherto Unrecorded Specimen of the 

Levantine Shearwater from Kent (N. F. Ticehurst), ete. 130 

F. B. KIRKMAN, B.aA., oxon. 

(erary LIT.) 
(Continued from page 82.) 

At Romney Marsh I examined this summer (1908) 
fifteen Common Terns’ nests. Of these twelve were in 
the shingle, and three on soil among herbage ; one made 
of lichen and grass was shaded by a foxglove, and em- 
bowered in white campion—a charming picture. Only 


one, lying in the shingle, was without lining of any sort. _ 
The material used in the case of the others consisted of 
small twigs, chiefly broom, coarse stems, dry grass and 
lichen. By using one of these materials, or combining 
two or three, the fourteen birds in question managed 
to produce seven variations, of which one is shown in 
Fig. 8. This species, also, according to Mr. Kearton, lays 
its eggs on bare rock. As in the case of the Arctic 

Fic. 6.—Arctic Tern’s Nest, with Pebbles and Bent. 

Terns, no definite relation between site and material could 
be traced. 

A word about the Little Tern. The late Howard 
Saunders stated that it uses no material for its nest. Mr. 
Fred. Austen, the watcher at Romney Marsh, endorses 
this, adding that the hen alone constructs the nest, which 
she does by the simple process of working her body round 
and round in the pebbles, much like a dog preparing 
its bed for a nap. But the late H. A. Macpherson des- 
cribes two nests (t.c., p. 418) one lined with “‘ dry stems of 


grass,’ the other with “ fine pebbles.”’ While no doubt 
the species generally dispenses with a lining (Fig. 7), 
further observation may show that variations are not 
infrequent. One may note in passing that the preference 
of the Little Tern for unlined nests may possibly account 
for the comparative scarcity of this species. 

Let us turn now to consider the bearing of the above 
facts, beginning with the variation in sites. It seems 
reasonable to assume that if there is any truth in the theory 
of protective coloration the normal (7.e., the safest) 
nesting site of the Arctic and Common Tern, and, indeed, 
of all the grey and white Terns and Gulls, is the closely 
packed shingle such as one finds on the beach or the vast 
stretches of Romney Marsh. Sitting amid the vague 
outlines of black, white, and grey stones, a Tern is prac- 
tically invisible. Something of this correspondence of 
colour is visible in Plate III, There is no reason to think 
that the invisibility is necessary to the safety of the 
Tern itself, for it is the last bird to be caught napping 
on its nest. But its advantage as a means of protecting 
eggs and young from discovery is obvious. 

By placing its eggs among herbage, on the bare sand 
patches, on rocks, or even in the shingle beds among the 
sandhills, where the stones are seldom closely packed 
(Fig. 6), the Tern sacrifices all the advantages to be 
derived from its coloration. In such sites it is a con- 
spicuous object. That it should be able to effect the 
change with comparative impunity seems to argue that 
the species has no longer many egg-stealing foes to fear. 
Under any circumstances it would require a bird of no 
mean courage or strength to pillage the nests of Terns, 
for they have an unpleasant habit of descending almost 
vertically, with the velocity of a bolt, upon unwelcome 
intruders, and striking with the beak. At Walney 
the young Black-headed Gulls, whose mottled brown 
plumage evidently caused their identity to be mistaken, 
suffered severely from this practice, often being struck 
down in mid-flight, and the more easily as they were 


ignorant of the Corvine device of turning bodily in the 
air and presenting beak and claws to an assailant from 
above. Howard Saunders records that a flock of 
Arctic Terns ‘‘has been seen to mob and drown a 
Hooded Crow.” On the other hand, it is stated that 
in the Farne Islands, a Greater Black-backed Gull 
forced to keep on the ground by a broken wing, relieved 
the monotony of its existence by prolonged feasting upon 

eal Mais 

Fic. 7.—Lesser Tern’s Nest in Shingle at Romney Marsh. 

the eggs and young of the large colony of Arctic Terns. 
A mile off one could see the whirling canopy of white 
wings that marked the spots where the invalid paused 
for refreshments. No doubt a Raven could also exact 

heavy toll. But these and other targe egg-eaters are 

now no longer common. 

The Arctic Terns of Walney were, however, far from 
effecting with impunity the change from the normal 
site. Though they shifted their nesting grounds at least 



once, and though they continued laying and re-laying 
up to the middle of July, it is doubtful whether they 
hatched out more than a dozen chicks. An almost clean 
sweep was made of the eggs, the marauder being no other 
than the humble rat. Traces of these creatures’ feet and 
tails were to be seen leading from nearly every nest to 
the nearest tuft of bent, where the broken shells of the 
eggs told the story of the theft. The deep narrow furrow 
made in each case by the tail in the sand seemed to show 
that the rat had used this appendage as a support while 
it hopped along on its hind legs with the eggs clasped in 
loving fashion to its breast. That it escaped being 
murdered by the parents is remarkable. 

If the Terns had nested in the packed shingle of the 
beach would their eggs have escaped the rats? Arguing 
a prior? it is at least clear that they would have been much 
more difficult to locate. Perhaps some other observer 
ean throw light on this point. 

So far I have shown, or attempted to show, that the 
Arctic Terns are quitting the safer shingle site for others 
more exposed. I suggest that this has been done with 
comparative impunity (assuming the rat ravages to be 
exceptional) owing to the greater scarcity of enemies 
powerful enough to take advantage of the new conditions. 
The same applies to a number of other sea-birds. Indeed, 
it is more than likely that the extermination of the larger 
birds of prey helps to explain much that is anomalous 
in the habits of British birds. But to show that the 
absence of enemies has rendered the change possible is 
not to explain why it took place. It may be that, owing 
to the spread of vegetation, or the invasion of sand, it 
is the nesting sites that are altering their character, and 
not the birds their choice. But this is mere conjecture. 

When we quit the subject of variation in site for that 
of nesting material, we find ourselves face to face with 
the two questions already put by Mr. Pycraft in respect 
to the Ringed Plover, the first being: How comes it 
about that certain individuals of the species provide 


their nests with a lining when other individuals dispense 
with it altogether? The explanation may lie in the 
undoubted capacity for imitation that birds possess. 
This would account for the presence of a lining where it 
was superfluous, or where, as has been shown to be 
frequently the case, it is too rudimentary to be of the 
least use. Imitation, even among human beings, is often 
quite unintelligent. Or it may be due to a tendency 

Fic. 8.—Common Tern’s Nest of Broom at Romney Marsh. 

inherited from some remote ancestor living under different 
conditions. Before, however, we can balance probabilities, 
we must decide whether the lined nests are to be regarded 
as the beginning of an advance, or as a survival, persisting 
not by virtue of necessity, but simply because it is 
harmless. The first step towards a solution is to find 
out whether the mortality among the chicks before or 
immediately after quitting the egg-shells is due to the 
absence or presence of a lining. 

The second question may be stated thus: How comes 


it that those individuals of the species which line their 
nests differ in their choice of material? Let us note that 
this choice is limited by two conditions, the most obvious 
being the accessibility of the material. But though 
accessibility limits choice, it does not necessarily determine 
its direction. The material of the Terns’ nest above 
described was equally accessible to all. A more striking 
illustration is, however, provided by the following details 
of the material used in six Thrushes’ nests, all built in 
gorse bushes within fifty yards of one another, one only 
being old: (1) gorse; (2) an old nest of grass, with a 
small amount of gorse and twigs, and one bit of wool ; 
(3) grass, moss, stalks ; (4) grass, moss, bracken ; (5) grass, 
a little wool ; (6) grass, moss, hairs. Obviously, the most 
accessible material for all was gorse, yet this was utilised 
by not more than two. 

The choice of materials in the Terns’ nests described 
appears to have been limited only by accessibility, but 
in the vast majority of cases, if not in all, there is a 
second quite distinct limiting condition which may briefly 
be called the law of species. For instance, the Thrush, 
though using a wide variety of materials in the normal 
construction of the outside of its nest, appears to be 
debarred from using twigs only. The material of the 
inside lining is subjected to still greater restrictions, 
being confined, ‘“‘ freak”? nests apart, to dung or mud 
studded with bits of rotten wood. This limitation is, 
no doubt, to be explained, as Mr. Alfred Russel Wallace 
has pointed out, by some peculiarity in the structure or 
habits, past or present, of the species. It would be 
interesting to know what this is in the case of the Thrush. 
What led it to scorn the Blackbird’s addition of grass, 
or the wool, hair, feathers, used by other species? Put 
more generally, the question is one of the origin of 
specific as distinct from individual variations. 

Within the limits thus imposed upon it by accessibility 
and the law of the species, why does one individual select, 
say, twigs, another pebbles? It may be that the young 


bird constructing its first nest takes the first “lawful ” 
material that accident places in its way, and so contracts 
the beginning of a habit that leads it to use normally the 
same material in the construction of all subsequent nests, 
even though the search for it demands much more time 
and labour than taking any other “lawful” material 
that happens to be near the adopted site. This theory, 
which would apply equally to cases in which both sexes 
took part in building, is at first sight plausible enough. 
It depends, however, upon a question of fact. It should 
not be difficult either by marking birds or watching their 
behaviour in captivity to find out whether they tend to 
continue the use of nesting material once adopted. 
Perhaps someone already has the facts. If so, let him 
write and deliver. 

Facts it is that are wanted, and as far as nests are 
concerned, it should not be difficult to collect a large 
number. Those who are prepared to co-operate in this 
work will at least have the satisfaction of feeling that 
their time is being put to good use. The question of 
variation, specific or individual, structural or functional, 
occupies to-day a place in the foremost rank of scientific 
problems, because it takes us to the roots of the evolution 
theory. It has no mere academic importance. Human 
progress depends upon human control of natural forces. 
There can be no control of these forces except by under- . 
standing the laws that govern their operations. And 
these laws can be reached only through a persevering 
accumulation of seemingly trivial facts. Jf there is one 
thing that Darwin, Wallace, and their successors have 
made clear, it is the immeasurable importance of the 
unimportant. They have shown us that from the spectacle 
of the humble Thrush collecting a beakful of rotten wood 
for its nest there is but one step to the brink of the un- 
plumbed depths that hide the answer to the riddle of 
the universe. 




Wa HH, MULGLHNS, m.A., olism.) MLB OU. 


THE first printed list of British Birds is that contained in the 
‘“Pinax Rerum . . . Britannicarum”’ of Christopher Merrett, 
or Merret. This small 8vo work was published in London in 
1666, and was, as its name denotes (Pinaz = a list, or index) 
an attempt on Merrett’s part to catalogue the vegetables, 
animals, and minerals, of Great Britain. Of the 223 pages 
of which the book consists, 165 are devoted to botany, 42 to 
zoology, and the remainder to minerals. In making his 
list Merrett was content, at any rate as regards the birds, 
to do little more than enumerate those which he considered 
he had identified from the descriptions of Ulyses Aldrovandus, 
whose twelve books on birds, largely founded on the work 
of Gesner, appeared between 1599 and 1603, and of Johannes 
Jonstonus, a Scotsman by descent, but by birth a Pole, the 
first edition of whose “‘ History of Birds” appeared in 1650.* 
The English names are added in many cases, but the few short 
notes are rarely original, and Merrett does not seem up to this 
time to have devoted much personal attention to the observa- 
tion or study of birds; indeed, the chief object of his book 
was to replace the “‘ Phytologia’’ (London, 1 vol., 8vo) of 
William Howe (1620-1656) a ‘“‘ Flora”? which had appeared 

* Merrett’s references to Gesner and Belon, both, as authors, far 

more accurate than the two above-mentioned, are, unfortunately, 
but few. 


in 1650, and speedily passed out of print. Meagre and im- 
perfect as Merrett’s efforts must now appear, his work was 
at any rate the first of its kind, and was held in high estimation 
by his contemporaries. Sir Thomas Browne (1605-1682), 
the celebrated author of the “ Religio Medici,’ with whom 
Merrett had entered into correspondence when he was 
contemplating a new and enlarged edition of the “ Pinax,” 

thus writes :— 
* July 13th, 1668. 

‘To Dr. Meret. 

‘‘most honoured Sir,—I take ye boldnesse to salute you 
as a person of singular worth and learning and whom I very 
much respect and honour. ...I should be very glad to 
serve you by any observations of mine against yr. second 
edition of your Pinax which I cannot sufficiently commende.” 
(cf. Southwell’s Notes and Letters on the Natural History of 
Norfolk, etc.” London, 1902. 1 vol., 8vo, p. 57). 

Dr. John Fleming, the author of “A History of British 
Animals ” (Edinburgh, 1828, 1 vol., 8vo) also appreciates the 
‘* Pinax,”’ and describes it as ‘“‘ This small work, which, though it 
claims little more than the merit of a catalogue, exhibits many 
proofs of great diligence, and rises in importance, when viewed 
as a first attempt at the construction of a British Fauna,” 
a far juster criticism than Pulteney’s (Richard Pulteney, 
1730-1801, author of “‘ Historical Sketches of the Progress 
of Botany,” 1790) that it was ‘“‘ extremely superficial.” 

As regards the book itself, a facsimile of the title page of 
the first edition (1 Vol., small 8vo) is here given. 

The Collation is:—pp. 2, Title & Imprimatur, + pp. 7, 
Epist. Dedicat. + pp. 21, Epist. ad Lect., + pp. 231 + p. 1. 

This edition (of 1666) is very rare, many copies having 
presumably been destroyed in the Great Fire of London of that 
same year, either at the printer’s or at Merrett’s house. 

In the next year, 1667, there appeared two editions, or 
re-issues of the “ Pinax,” similar in contents to the original, 
but with different title pages, as below, one entitled ‘‘ Editio 
Secunda,”’ as follows :— 

Pe eN A 

Rerum Naturalium 

voces tr i A: 

In hac infula repperta in- 

Chri fepboro Merrett 

Mediems Doétore utriufque Societatis Regiz 
Socio primoque Mufzi Harveani cuftode. 

Mn To dye MMOUVov AAG 
€Py@ ATL void Secs TSS (nTedS. 

Londini Impenfis Cave Palleys ad Infigne Rofe 
in Cameterio Divi Paul, Typis F.& 
T.Warren, Anno 1666. 


Pinax / Rerum Naturalium / Britannicarum, / continens / 
Vegetabilia, Animalia, / et / Fossilia, / In hac Insula reperta 
inchoatus / Editio Secunda. / Auctore / Christophoro Merrett,/ 
Medicine Doctore utriusque Societatis / Regize Socio primoque 
Musei Har- / veani Custode. / (quotation from Hippocrates) 
Londini, / Typis T. Roycroft, Impensis Cave Pulleyn, Prostat 
apud / Sam Thomson in vico vulgo dicto Duck lane, 1667. / 
1 vol., small 8vo. 

Collation: pp. 2, Title & Imprimatur. + pp. 10, Epist. 
Dedicat. + pp. 20, Epist. ad Lect. + pp. 223 + p. 1. 

The other, a mere reprint of the original edition :— 

Pinax / Rerum Naturalium / Britannicarum, / continens / 
Vegetabilia, Animalia, / et / Fossilia, / In hac Insula reperta 
inchoatus. / Auctore / Christoporo Merrett, / Medicine Doctore 
utriusque Societatis / Regiz Socio promoque Muszi Har- / 
veani Custode. / (quotation from Hippocrates) Londini, / 
Typis T. Roycroft, Impensis Cave Pulleyn. / MDCLXVII. 

1 vol., small 8vo. Collation as above. 

It will be noticed that the date of this last edition, unlike 
that of the first, and the ‘‘ editio secunda,” 1s in Roman, not 
Arabic, figures. 

(Engelmann gives an Edition of 1704. N.S.) | 

Although there appears to be no evidence that Merrett 
published any edition of the “ Pinax ” later than 1667, he cer- 
tainly contemplated doing so, and in August, 1668, he writes 
Sir T. Browne that: “ Besides those mentioned in ye pinax 
I have 100 to add & ... I doe entreat this favour off yu 


to inform me fuller off those unknown things .. .” and in 
response to this request Sir Thomas Browne placed at his 
disposal the notes which he had prepared “ of many animals 
in these parts whereof 3 years agoe a learned gentleman of 
this Country wished me to give him some account, which while 
I was doing ye gentleman my good friend died.” 
Christopher Merrett, who, like so many of the earlier 
ornithologists, was by profession a physician, was born at 
Winchcomb, in Gloucestershire, on Feb. 16th, 1614. In 
1631 he became a member of Gloucester Hall, Oxford, and 
removed to Oriel College in 1633. He took his B.A. degree 
in 1635, and then, devoting himself to the study of medicine, 


graduated M.B. in 1636, and M.D. in 1643. He afterwards 
settled in London, became a Fellow of the Royal College of 
Physicians in 1651, and Gulstonian Lecturer in 1654. Through 
the influence of his friend, Dr. William Harvey (1578-1657) 
Merrett became the first librarian of the College. He resided 
at Amen Corner, and is stated by Wood (Athen. Oxon.) to have 
acquired a considerable practice. The bulk of the library 
belonging to the College, and Merrett’s house were, however, 
destroyed in the Great Fire, and Merrett lost his appointment. 
He thereupon brought an action against the Royal College 
of Physicians, in which he claimed that he was entitled to 
his office for life. In this claim he failed, and was ultimately 
in 1681 expelled from his Fellowship, nominally for non- 
attendance. He died at his house in Hatton Garden, August 
19th, 1695, and was buried ‘12 feet deep in the church of 
St. Andrew’s, Holborne.”” (Wood.) Merrett was the author 
of numerous other works, chiefly on medicine, and he also 
contributed several papers on ‘“‘ vegetable physiology ”’ to the 
“Philosophical Transactions.” His name is commemorated 
in Botany. 8S. F. Gray having in his “‘ Natural Arrangement 
of British Plants ” (1821), given the name of Merrettia to a 
group of unicellular Alge. 

We here print Merrett’s list of birds verbatim, adding, with 
the assistance of Mr. W. Warde Fowler, a few short explanatory 
notes, which are placed within thick square brackets. The 
pages of the original text are enclosed within ordinary square 

[Page 170] Aves Britannice. 
Terrestres Carnivore. 

Aquila, the Hagle, I. 10, tab. 1. 2. Ald. 110. G. 149. quandog ; 
huc migrat ex Hibernia ubi abundat. 

[‘“‘ Migrates out of Ireland where it abounds.” Merrett 
has here, as elsewhere, availed himself freely of information 
contained in Giraldus Cambrensis’ (1146-1223) “‘ Topography 
of Ireland.”’* Giraldus in his ninth chapter, which deals with. 

* First printed in 1577 (Anderson). 


““The Eagle and its Nature,” informs us that “ Eagles are 
as numerous here (7.e., in Ireland) as kites are in other 
countries.’ ] | 
Accipiter, the Hawk, I. 20. tab. 7. Ald. 225. 228. G. 3. 
Haliztus, the Sea Hagle, vel Osprey Turn. Quandog ; 
conspicitur in Cornubia, I. 12. tab. 2. Ald. 188. 190. G. 177. 
‘sine icone. 

[The Osprey, cf. Turner (Evans’ edition, pp. 35, 37, 193-195).* 
Giraldus seems to have been responsible for the idea, freely 
copied by later writers, that “By an extraordinary con- 
trivance of sportive nature,one of their feet spreads open, 
armed with talons, and adapted for taking their prey, the other 
is close, harmless, and only fit for swimming.” Merrett’s 
statement that it is seen in Cornwall is, no doubt, taken from 
Carew’s “ Survey of Cornwall” (1602, Fol. 35).] 

Lanarius, the Lanar, mas vocatur, the Lanaret, Ald. 381.382. 
I. 24. tab. 9.—in Shirwood Forest, in agro Notinghamensi, 
and in Dean Forest, in agro Glaucestrensi. 

[The name “ Lanar”’ has been applied to various species 
of Falcons (cf. Newton, Dict. Birds, p. 503). It is doubtful 
if Merrett here means Falco lanarius—probably this bird 
never bred in the British Isles—but vide Latham’s “ Falconry ” 
(1618, Book 11, p. 112), and Hollingshead ‘ Description of 
England ” (1577, Ch. V., p. 227) to the contrary.] 

Accip. Palumbarius, the Goshawk, mas dicitur the Tassel, 
Tertiolus, G. 43. 

[The Goshawk, cf. Willughby (p. 85). “ Tassel,” or 
Tercel, the term applied by falconers to the male of the 
Goshawk and Peregrine.] 

Accip. Fringillarius, & Nisus, the Sparrow-Hawk, I. 22. 
tab. 8. Ald. 346. 347. G. 44. mas appellatur, the Muschel, 
In plerisq ; locis sylvaticis. 

[“‘ The male is called Muschel.” The male of the Sparrow- 
hawk was termed in falconry the Musket—cf. “ Diary of 
Master William Silence” (p. 151), and ‘Merry Wives of 
Windsor ” (3.3.21): “‘ How now, my eyas-musket.’’] 

Tinnunculus mas & femina, a Stannel, or Stonegall, I. 
22. tab. 8. Ald. 358. a Keshrel, or Kastrel, in tractibus Austral. 
G. 46. 

[‘‘ Stannel”’ = Kestrel, cf. Swainson “ Provincial Names of 
British Birds” (p. 140).] 

* References to Turner are from Mr. A. H. Evans’ edition. Cam- 
bridge. 1903. I vol. 8vo. 


Falco, the Faulcon, I. 30. tab. 12. speciem nescio, in Pem- 

[The figure in Jonstonus is seemingly that of the Peregrine, 
cf. Willughby (pp. 76 and 79) for Peregrine.] 

Coccyx, Cuculus, the Cuckoe, or Guckoe, I. 24. tab. 10. Ald. 
414, 416. sub medium Aprilis nos advolat. 

Lanius, the Butcher, or murdering Bird, I. 24. [Page 171.] 
tab. 10. Ald. 389. G. 520. vidi juxta Kingsland, zstivo tempore 
ter. quaterve. Lanius Cinereus Anglicé, a Skreek, G. 520. 

Laniorum duas alias species observavit nobilis vir D. 
Willoughby totius nature diligentissimus Callentissimusgq ; 
scrutator non solum per Britanniam sed maximam partem 

[Most probably the Red-backed Shrike, since he saw it in 
summer. The two other species of Shrike observed by 
Willughby were (1) “The greater Butcher-Bird, or Matta- 
gesse, and in the Peak of Derbyshire after the German name 
Wierangel, or Werangel, Lanius Cinerus Major”; and (2) 
“The Wood-chat, Lanius Minor Cinereo-ruffus,”’ cf. ‘‘ The 
Ornithology ” (p. 21). 

The word ‘“ Shreek” was applied to the Mistle-Thrush 
and also to the Barn-Owl in old English vocabularies of the 
eleventh and fifteenth century. Willughby seems to infer 
that Turner was responsible for the name Shrike, as applied 
to the Butcher-bird, and John Ray, in ‘“ A Collection of 
English Words ” (London, 1674, 1 vol., 12mo, p. 83) confirms 

Milvus, the forked tail’d Kite, I. 24. tab. 11. Ald. 395. G. 
549. Turn. a Glede, a Puttock. 

[Cf. Turner (Evans’ Ed., p. 117) ‘ milvus, in English, a 
glede, a puttock, a kyte.” ‘The name “ puttock”’ was also 
applied by Willughby to the Buzzard (p. 70).] 

Subuteo, the ring-tail’d Kite, I. 24, tab. 9. 

[The Ringtail was the old name for the female Hen-Harrier. 
Cf. Willughby (p. 21). Merrett seems to have added Kite by 
mistake. ] 

Buteo Triorchis, the Buzzard, Ald 367. 

[Willughby makes the curious statement (p. 21) that 
this bird is a great destroyer of conies.] 

Peronos, the bald Buzzard, or Kite. 

[Turner applies the name “ Bald-Buzzard ”’ to the Marsh- 
Harrier, which he says the English call ‘“‘ Balbushard”’ (cf. Evans’ 


Edition, p. 33). Merrett here again wrongly introduces the 
word Kite.] 

Noctua, the Night, or little grey Owl, I. 48. tab. 18. Ald. 
tom. 1. 544. Bubo Turn. a like Fowl. 

[Turner says “‘bubo, in English alyke foule” (p. 47). 
It is difficult to determine what Owl Merrett here refers to.. 
Can it be the Little Owl? The Short-eared Owl is called to 
this day the “ grey yogle”’ in the Shetlands (cf. Swainson, 
p- 129). It is not, however, a night Owl. Charleton in 
his ‘‘Onomasticon Zoicon’”’ (1668, p. 70) calls “‘ Noctua ” 
“the Common Grey Owl.’’] 

Ulula, the white hooping Owl, or Owlet, or Howlet, I. tab. 19. 
Ald. 538. G. 700. 

[Ulula = the Barn-Owl.] 
Strix, the Screech, or Screeching Owl, I. tab. 19. Ald. 563. 
[The Screech Owl = the Tawny Owl (cf. Swainson, p. 129.)] 

Corvus, the Raven, I. 38. tab. 16, Ald. 694. in ulmetis juxta- 
zedes nobilium, G. 294. 

Corvus, I. 38. tab. 16. owr common or Carrion Crow, G. 282. 
Cornix nigra, Ald. 736. & Cornix simpliciter Turn. 

Cornix frugilega, spermologus, a Rook, I. 40. tab. 17. Ald. 
tom. 1. 753. 

Cornix aquat. Hance videt Turn. apud Morpetenses in ripis 
fluminum, G. 293. suspicor esse, the mur Cornubiensium. 

[This is the Water-Ouzel, or Dipper. Merrett has been 
misled by Turner’s use of the Northumbrian name 
‘““ Watercraw’”’ (Evans’ Edition, p. 23), and has placed it 
among the Corvide. He has further confused the matter by 
suspecting it to be the Cornish “ Mur.” The word “ murre ” 
is used in Cornwall to designate the Razor-Bill, called also 
the Sea-Crow (cf. Swainson, p. 217).] 

Cornix Cinerea, the Royston Crow, I. ubi supra, Ald. 755. 

[Formerly also spelt Roiston Crow (cf. Ray, op. cit., p. 83, 
and Cotgrave’s Dictionary). Willughby (p. 22) says: 
“Common in Cambridgeshire about Newmarket and 

[Page 172.] Graculus vel Monedula, a Jackdaw, a Chough, 
Turn. a Caddo, a Ka, I. 38. tab. 16. Ald. 771. G. 467. 

[Jackdaws were sometimes called Choughs (c/. Harting’s 
Ornithology of Shakespeare, p. 119).] 
Coracias Arist. the Cornish Chough, I. 38. tab. 16. Ald. 

768. In omnibus oris maritimis a Cornubia ad Doroberniam. 


[Charleton (op. cit.) says its Cornish name was “the 
Killegrew ” (cf. Swainson, p. 74).] 

Pica Glandaria, a Jay, I. 40. tab. 17. Ald. 789. Garrulus 
avis, G. 634. 

Pica, the Magpie, Pyot, Py-anet, I. 40. tab. 17. Pica varia 
seu caudata, Ald. tom. I. 85. G. 628. 

[Ray (p. 84) has Pianet (cf. Swainson, p. 75).] 
Pica Marina, the Sea Pye, I. ut supra Ald. tab. 792. 794. 

[The Oyster-Catcher (cf. Turner, Evans’ Edition, p. 199; 
and also Swainson, p. 188). The Pica Marina of 
Aldrovandus is the Roller (cf. also Willughby, p. 132). Ray 
properly places the “‘ Sea-pie’ among the Waders (p. 80).] 

Vespertilio, a Bat, Flittermouse, Rearmouse, I. 52. tab. 
20. Ald. 574. G. 604. vesperi apparet estate. Hyeme vero 
latet in cryptis, & rupibus. 

[Merrett, following the example of Gesner,* Belon,t 
Aldrovandus,{ Jonstonus,§ and Lovell,|. has placed the 
Bat in his list of birds. Charleton follows Merrett, and 
Albin as late as 1738 includes the Bat in his “ History of 
Birds ” (cf. Linneeus, Fauna Suecica, p. 7). Turner, avoiding 
this error, makes no mention of the Bat in his “‘ Avium... 
Historia.” Rearmouse = Reremouse, cf. Bartholomew (de 
Proprietatibus Rerum, Berthelet’s Edition, 1535, Book XIL., 
Fo. 38), and Shakespeare (M.N.D., II., 2.4.) :-— 

“Some war with rere-mice for their leathern wings 
To make my small elves coats.’’] 

Loxias, the Shell-Apple, Ald. 2. 877. I. 46. sine Icone in agro 
Warwic. in Pomaris, Mr. Willoughby. 

[The Shell-apple = the Crossbill (cf. Carew, Fol. 25,Willughby, 
p. 248, and Swainson, p. 67).] 

Caprimulgus, the Goat-sucker, I. 52. tab. 20. Ald. 568. G. 
215. Hune ceepit Dominus Cole, in agro Hantoniensi, an. 
1664. rara admodum avis. 

[It is strange that Merrett should describe the Goatsucker 
as a rare bird. Turner also does not mention it as a British 
bird, but relates that he made enquiries concerning its habits 
in Switzerland.] 

* Conrad Gesner (1516—1561), ‘“‘ De Avibus,” 1555. 
+ Pierre Belon (ob. 1564), ‘‘ L’ Histoire des Oyseaux,”’ 1 
{ Ulyses Aldrovandus (1522—1605), ‘‘ Ornithologiz,” 1 
§ Johannes Jonstonus (1603—1675), ‘‘ De Avibus, 1650. 
|| Robert Lovell (1630—1690), ‘‘ History of Animals,” 1661. 



Aves Granivore non canore. 

Pavo, the Peacock, I. 52. tab. 22. Ald. 219. G. 594. 

. . . Fem the Peahen, I. 56. tab. 22. Ald. ib. plo. 

Gallo pavo, the Turkey-cock, I. 58. tab. 24. Ald. tab. 2. 
39. G. 426. 

Phasianus, the Pheasant, I. ut supra Ald. tom. 2. 49. G. 619. 
Horum pulli vocantur Pouts, Est albus & alter fuscus. 

[Page 173.] Urogallus, major Cock of the Wood, I. 60. tab. 
25. Urogallus seu Tetrao major Ald. 2. 64. in Hibernia 

[The Capercalzie (also as Capricala, p. 179). Merrett’s 
statement that it occurs in Ireland is derived from Giraldus 
Cambrensis’ “Topography of Ireland” (Chapter X.), “ wild 
peacocks here abound in the woods,” cf. also Willughby 
(p. 23), ‘ This is not found in England, but in Ireland there 
be of them,’ and Ussher and Warren, ‘“ Birds of Ireland ”’ 

(p. 330).] 
Gallina Coryllorum, the Hasel Hen, Grous, I. 60. tab. 25. 
Ald. 2. 82. Bonosa Albert, G. 203. 

[Merrett here differs from Aldrovandus, who figures what 
is apparently the Francolin, under the title Attagen, and 
states that it was also called the Hazel Hen. Gallina 
coryllorum, Aldrovandus calls Rab-hun. There is some con- 
fusion here, as in many other of Merrett’s statements, the 
Hazel Hen, as far as we know, never having inhabited Great 

Gall. Africana, the Guiney Hen, I. 58. tab. 24. Gallina 
Guinea, Ald. tom. 2. 337. meleagris vel Gallus Numidicus, 
G. 424. 

Otis, Tarda, Bistarda, the Bustard, I. 62. tab. 26. Ald. 
288. G. 430. On Newmarket Heath, & in Campestribus 

[Turner (p. 167), “in English a Bustard or a Bistard” 
(cf. Willughby, p. 178).] 
Attagen, a Godwit, I. 62, tab. 26. Ald. 275, in agro Lincoln. 

[Turner’s “‘ Attagen”’ (p. 45) is the Godwit, cf. also Wil- 
lughby (p. 292).] 

Perdix Ruffa, the Partridge, I. 62, tab. 27. Ald. 2. 189. G. 

Coturnix, the Quail, I. 62. tab. 27. Ald. tom. 2. 153. G. 311. 

(To be continued.) 




Tue following paper does not pretend to be an exhaustive 
one, but is the result of my own observations during 
the past winter in the district of Barnstaple, North 

All birds show considerable care in the choice of a 
secure roosting site, and in order to spare labour in look- 
ing for a fresh one every night, they frequently return 
to the same place continuously. 

A great many of the small species roost in company, 
“cuddling,” or keeping close together in a bunch for 
warmth. I have found four Wrens roosting in this way 
in a hole in a tree, and have disturbed several sleeping 
in their “ cock ”’ nests, but as far as my notes go, these 
are generally vacant. On one occasion last summer I 
noticed several Long-tailed Tits (probably a brood) 

_ on the top of their nest, which had become quite flattened 

and was covered with droppings. I expect, therefore, 
that they returned to the nest every night, and when 
they got too large, roosted on the top of it. Wrens 
up to the number of thirty at a time, Long-tailed Tits, 
and Golden-crested Wrens are recorded as_ roosting 
together in this “bunching” fashion by Mr. G. A. 
B. Dewar (in the Birds of Our Wood). One _ night 
I saw two Blue Tits embracing each other in this way 
in an apple tree. They looked like one large bird, so 
close to each other were they. ‘This is not, however, 
the usual habit of this Tit, for it generally roosts in 


The Sparrow, as is well known, will occupy an old 


House-Martin’s nest, or will line a hole in a thatch with 
feathers. Partridges roost on the ground, while 
Pheasants and fowls prefer to roost in trees. 

A Hedge-Sparrow which I had under observation, 
returned every evening last winter with the utmost 
regularity to a cranny among dead ivy on anelm. When 
driven out it would return in a few moments, first pitching 
on a branch of the tree, and then swiftly sneaking into 
the cranny, so that its return very frequently escaped 
my notice entirely. 

Kestrels roost at the same spot, in a quarry for ex- 
ample, for many consecutive weeks. 

The Pied Wagtail and the Grey Wagtail in the Barn- 
staple district collect in some numbers every evening, 
and roost in reed beds, like the Starlings. They drop 
in from all directions, but do not come from more than 
a mile distant. As a rule they collect on the ground, 
or telegraph wires, near the reed bed, before disappearing 
into the reeds, calling, and flying short distances in one 
flock. This flock increases as the birds come up one 
by one, and finally they drop into the reeds, where they 
are joined by Robins and Wrens. 

A great many species of birds roost in company, notably 
Starlings. Others are: House-sparrows, Carrion Crows 
(especially in Devon and Somerset), Magpies (which I 
have observed near Barnstaple), Rooks, and Wood- 

In North Devon, in the colder months of the year, 
the Rooks never roost in their rookery during, at all 
events, the months of November, December, January, 
February, and part of March, but they collect in large 
numbers and roost in a wood, perhaps two or three 
miles away from the rookery. In the morning the 
roost breaks up, and the members of each community 
make away, with the utmost regularity, to their respective 
rookeries. At the rookeries they stand about “ talking,” 
perhaps till nine o’clock, and then they disperse to feed 
and meet again in the evening at the roost. If the 


morning is a frosty one they stay on the rookery trees 
longer than usual. 

At Tapely Park, Instow, Jackdaws collect in pro- 
digious quantities, numbering many thousands (though 
it is extremely difficult to judge the number), and roost 
in the beech trees. A roost of Rooks occupies the same 
group of trees. The interesting feature connected with 
these Jackdaws is that the birds, in going to and from 
their roost, always take exactly the same route. A large 
flock which, during part of its course, is forced to fly 
over the town of Bideford, always flies across exactly 
the same part of the town every evening. It was by 
watching and following up for several days another big 
flock (numbering 200 or 300), which fed daily in the 
fields at Braunton (about three and a half miles from the 
roost) throughout the whole of last winter, that I finally 
discovered this large roost. Every morning and every 
evening this flock as regularly as a Royal Mail performs 
this journey. They follow very carefully the same line 
of flight, even to the barest detail, but occasionally they 
fly very high, and they then appear to follow a more 
direct course, for it is noteworthy that these birds do 
not, as a rule, make a bee-line by any means. The reason 
why they sometimes fly at a great height I cannot imagine. 
I do not think that it has anything whatever to do with 
wind or weather. Arrived at the roost, the birds 
“rocket ’? down perpendicularly, dropping like plummets 
through space, and commence to “chock” for an hour 
or more before darkness falls. Starlings and Wood- 
Pigeons when dropping in to roost, ‘“‘ rocket ’’ down in 
this same eccentric way, and many birds behave 
similarly at times, when they may be said to be “ at play.” 
The habit with the roosting birds is, however, a constant 
one, and takes place every evening. I have found 
another big Jackdaw roost at Eggesford—in a very 
wooded district. 

Far more striking evidence as to the use of flight-lines 
in these ‘‘ miniature migrations ”’ is to be seen in the 


case of the Starling. A large Starling roost is a very 
imposing sight, and has attracted the attention of a great 
many writers. The very remarkable turns of flight 
displayed by these birds at roosting time constitute, 
perhaps, one of the most striking phenomena which 
British bird-life has to show. 

In the Barnstaple district there are four or five such 
roosts. I have not discovered the birds travelling more 
than six miles to and from a roost. I have repeatedly 

=> SS Starlings main route 
> — Route of lost flock 

noticed how strictly the birds keep to their arbitrarily 
prescribed line of flight. The best instance I can give 
is shown in the accompanying map. 

The flocks sweep along this main course with astonish- 
ing regularity every night, flock succeeding flock, and 
each separate flock pursuing the same course, as a rule 
dividing at 2, one half going to one roost, and the other 
half to another roost. They fly high—well above the 
neighbouring hills and valleys—although it will be noticed 
that they follow a valley for some distance ; this route, 
moreover, was not merely roughly followed, but the birds 


came accurately along a mathematically straight line, as 
far as @. 

On February 19th I was at this spot watching the 
Starlings. I was particularly interested in one flock 
which never arrived along the usual, main, flight-line, 
but cut into it at right angles (as indicated in the sketch 
map). This flock, on this particular evening, however, 
appeared to have lost its bearings, for it wandered about, 
as I show in the sketch, as if trying to cross Coddon Hill, 
which the birds never did at any time ; finally, it seemed 
to perceive its whereabouts, doubled back and went on, 
crossing the 400-foot ridge. On the 22nd, this same 
flock was making for the roost, flying against a heavy 
westerly gale. Hard weather and frost seems to make 
no diminution in numbers at the roosts. I may mention 
here that on every occasion that I have visited a Starling 
roost last winter (about seven times) there was always 
a Sparrow-Hawk flying close at hand, and I have repeat- 
edly seen this Hawk harrying flocks as they came in to 

Individual flocks, when perhaps three miles away from 
their roost, and out of the main stream of ‘“ migration,” 
followed, I found, in the few cases I had under ob- 
servation, the same route every night. One small flock, 
for example, always crossed the River Taw at a certain 
point near a signal box, for several weeks last winter. 
Routes, however, like these, on the extreme periphery 
of the system, vary when the particular flock changes 
its feeding quarters. 

Possibly some of the foregoing will have to be modified 
after more prolonged observation, but the main point 
will hold—the universal use of flight-lines by Starlings in 
going to and from their roost. 

Whether birds, with their large semi-circular canals, 
have a sense of direction or whether their migrations are 
carried out by the aid of the sun or by the earth’s 
magnetism or any other power is moot, yet one thing 
seems certain and that is that they possess a powerful 


memory. I feel sure that however the migrational 
movement as a whole is effected, the way in which the 
Swallow returns year after year to the same old beam in 
the same old barn is simply memory—topographical 
knowledge of the chief natural features and the general 
mould of the country in the neighbourhood of its nesting 

( 125 ) 




Part X EET: 
(Continued from page 87.) 

STOCK-DOVE Columba cenas L. S. page 481. 

DurHAM.—Two nests in drains underground entered by 
gargoyles in walls (H. B. Tristram, Vict. Hist. Durham, vol. 1). 

NORTHUMBERLAND.—First seen in 1878, now a regular 
resident (A. Chapman, bird-Life of the Borders, p. 31.) 

ScoTLaAND.—Caithness—A young bird was shot near 
Castletown, Thurso, on December 4th, 1901. Believed to 
be the first record for the county (T. E. Buckley, Ann. S.N.H.., 
1902, p. 53). Ayrshire—A nest was found near Darvel in 
May, 1902 (J. Paterson, t.c., 1902, p. 184). Bute.——Nests 
were found in 1906, (é.c., 1907, p. 199). Shetlands.—One at 
Halligarth, June 22nd-25th (T. E. Saxby, t.c., 1905, p. 117). 

‘“*T cannot consider their appearance anywhere on the west 
side of the backbone of Scotland (7.e., anywhere north of 
Clyde) as anything but phenomenal” (J. A. Harvie-Brown, 
Fauna N.W. Highlands and Skye, p. 260). A very full 
account of its arrival and spread in the east is given in 
“Fauna of Tay Basin and Strathmore” (pp. 259-266). 

IsLE oF Man.—Nests in small numbers (P. Ralfe, B. of 
Isle of Man, p. 178). 

TRELAND.—Extending its range. Breeds in Leinster, 
parts of Ulster and Munster to the Shannon (R. J. Ussher, 
m litt.). 

TURTLE-DOVE Turtur communis Selby. 

SHROPSHIRE.—A marked increase of late years (H. E. 
Forrest, in litt.). 

CHESHIRE.—Now steadily increasing in numbers; it was 
practically unknown in the county about fifty years ago 
(Coward and Oldham, B. of Cheshire, p. 180). 

Norto Watzs.—Is spreading westward, especially along 


the north coast, where it breeds as far as Bangor. Has just 
begun to penetrate to the western side of Montgomery and 
Merioneth (H. E. Forrest, Vert. F. N. Wales, P. 304). 

YORKSHIRE.—It is extending northwards. ‘* At the present 
time its nesting area may be defined as being on the eastern 
side of a line passing through the centre of the county by 
Ripon, Harrogate, Leeds and Wakefield, to Sheffield.” The 
most northerly point at which it is known to have nested 
with certainty is Scarborough, where a nest was found in 
June, 1900, and again at Wykeham by Mr. R. Fortune in 
1905 (T. H. Nelson, B. of Yorks., pp. 496 and 497). 

Scottanp.—Shetlands.—One at Lerwick on December 
4th, 1905 (Ann. S.N.H., 1906, p. 199). One on May 28th, 
and a good many in the second and third weeks of June, 1902, 
were seen at Dunrossness (é.c., 1903, p. 153). Caithness.— 
One on June 23rd at Barriedale (t.c., 1900, p. 83). Argyll. 
One seen on August 29th, 1900, at Dhuheartach (f.c., 1901, 
p- 139). Outer Hebrides—One was shot on the Flannan 
Isles on September 14th, 1900 (é.c., 1901, p. 139). A young 
bird appeared at Eoligary on August 18th, 1901, and was 
caught on September 29th. Another older bird appeared on 
September 25th (J. A. Harvie-Brown, f.c., 1902, p. 215). 
N.W. Highlands and Skye.—Only an occasional visitant 
(id., Fauna N.W. Highlands and Skye, p. 263). 

Ist or Man.—A rare straggler (P. Ralfe, B. of Isle of Man, 
p. 183). 

JRELAND.—A female was shot on May 24th, 1904, near 
Hillsborough, co. Down. It had eggs in the ovary, and 
showed no trace of having been in captivity (N. H. Foster, 
Irish Nat., 1904, p. 155). Messrs. Ussher and Warren record 
thirty-three occurrences in May and twenty in June, on 
migration (B. of Ireland, p. 227), so that Mr. Foster’s record 
cannot be taken as an addition to the breeding records in 
Ireland, which are only two of many years ago. 

PALLAS’S SAND-GROUSE Syrrhaptes paradoxus (Pall.). 
S. page 488. 
1899.—From the last week of January to March 23rd, 
a flock of thirty or so was seen on the north wolds of Lincoln- 
shire in the same field in which they appeared in 1888. A 
single bird was seen in the same district on May 19th, and a 
small flight was observed in the Spurn district (Yorkshire) 
on May 13th (J. Cordeaux, Ibis, 1899, p. 472). 
1904.—A flock of eighteen was observed in the second week 
of February flying northward over Millington, Yorkshire 
(T. H. Nelson, B. of Yorks., p. 503). 


1906.—A flock of six or seven was seen (in May) on some 
“well-known links” in East Lothian (C. E. S. Chambers, 
Field, 2, vi., 06, p. 901). A flock of about twenty was. 
seen by Mr. R. Vincent on June 11th, in Norfolk, and ten were 
seen by Mr. D. Annison at Somerton on June 17th, while 
some were reported in Yorkshire in July (J. H. Gurney, Zool., 
1907, p. 130). 

CAPERCAILLIE Tetrao urogallus L. 8. page 491. 

ScorTLanp.—WMidlothian.—Two were seen in the autumn 
of 1906 at Bavelaw (H. N. Bonar, Ann. S.N.H., 1907, p. 52). 
Mr. W. Evans has six records, including one shot in Bavelaw 
fir-wood nearly “ twenty years ago” (l.c.). Dumfriesshire.— 
Three were seen in November, 1905, in the: N.N.W. of the 
county (H. 8S. Gladstone, l.c.). Wigtownshire—Two were 
shot about 1874 (H. Maxwell, t.c., 1907, p. 116). Ayrshire.— 
A female was killed on December 14th, 1905, near Tarbolton 
Moss (H. 8. Gladstone, t.c., 1906, p. 116). Aberdeenshire.— 
A female in full male plumage was shot in January, 1906, 
in the north of the county (E. T. Clarke, t.c., 1907, p. 117). 

Hyprip.—A hybrid between this species and _ the 
Pheasant was obtained at Stronchullin, Blairmore, Argyllshire, 
in September, 1897. This bird and the three previously 
known specimens of such a hybrid are fully described (W. E. 
Clarke, é.c., 1898, pp. 17-21). 

BLACK GROUSE Terao tetrix L. 8S. page 493. 

CorNWALL.—Now almost extinct (J. Clark, Vict. Hist. 
Cornwall, vol. 1). 

ITRELAND.—Bones discovered in the Ballynamintra Cave, 
co. Waterford, prove the former existence of this species in 
Ireland (G. E. H. Barrett-Hamilton, Irish Nat., 1899, pp. 
Pieand 37). 

Hyprips.—Willow Grouse ¢ x Greyhen (P.Z.S., 1904, 
Vol. I., p. 411, figure). Black Game x Pheasant—Fifty- 
five specimens in Great Britain recorded (F. C. R. Jourdain, 
Zool., 1906, pp. 321-330 and 433; Ann. S.N.H., 1906, p. 
2a; cf. also Bull. B.O.C., XVI., pp. 54 and 55). “Since 
these papers were written I have received notes of several 
Other occurrences” (F. C. R. J. én litt.). 

Intropuction.—Surrey.—Those introduced in 1875 on 
Witley Common, and which did good for some time in helping 
to keep the old stock going, are believed now (1900) to be 
practically extinct (J. A. Bucknill, Zool., 1901, p. 253). 
According to Mr. G. W. Swanton, two pairs bred in 1905 in 


“a certain wild tract of country,” and a single Greyhen was 
seen in the spring of 1906 (L. B. Mouritz, t.c., 1907, p. 93). 
Norfolk.—The experiment of turning out Black Game at 
Thetford by Mr. W. Dalziel Mackenzie has been continued, 
and thirty were turned out in 1900-1901. Broods hatch off 
regularly, but seem to disappear in some unaccountable 
manner, and the numbers, in spite of fresh introductions, 
steadily decrease (Heatley Noble, ¢.c., 1903, p. 155). Herts.— 
A Greyhen was shot on December Ist, 1906, near Watford— 
the only record for the county (W. Bickerton, in litt.). Hants. 
—TIn the New Forest district they are almost extinct (H. F. W.) 
(A useful article on the distribution of this bird in English 
counties, by Mr. J. E. Harting, appeared in the Meld for 
September 8th, 1900, p. 387.) 

RED GROUSE Lagopus scoticus (Lath.). S. page 495. 

[CoRNWALL.—One reported to have been shot near Tintagel 
‘on December Ist, 1906 (J. Clark, Zool., 1907, p. 286).] 

Hyprip.—Red Grouse ¢ x Bantam Fowl 2, exhibited 
by J. G. Millais (Bull. B.O.C., VIII., p. 36). 

Intropuction.—Shetland.—Some six hundred birds were 
liberated on the mainland in September, 1901 (T. E. Saxby, 
Zool., 1902, p. 113). Two were seen at Balta Sound, 
November 16th, 1902 (2d., ¢.c., 1903, p. 157). Suffolk.iA 
few brace were turned out about 1903 at Elveden, and they 
have increased to about 150 birds (“‘ Head Keeper” in lit. 
to J. Green, February 2nd, 1908). Surrey.—Details regarding 
early introductions (J. A. Bucknill, Zool., 1902, p. 68). 

PTARMIGAN Lagopus mutus (Montin). 

Bones of this species were found amongst others in the 
Shandon and Ballynamintra Caves, co. Waterford (G. E. H. 
Barrett-Hamilton, Irish Nat., 1899, p. 17). 

COMMON PARTRIDGE Perdix cinerea Lath. 8S. page 501. 

A brood of twelve a few days old was discovered at 
Stratton Strawless, Norfolk, on January 31st, 1906. They 
were reduced to two by February 22nd, and these apparently 
did not long survive (J. H. Gurney, Zool., 1907, p. 123). 

RED-LEGGED PARTRIDGE Caccabis rufa (L.). 8S. page 
For some evidence of its migrating to the coast of Norfolk 

and Yorkshire (cf. A. Patterson, Zool., 1905, p. 186, and W. 
J. Clarke, t.c., p. 314). 


SPOTTED CRAKE Porzana maruetta. 8S. page 509. 

ScorLanp.—Argyll.— One was taken in August, 1900, at. 
Dhuheartach (Ann. S.N.H., 1901, p. 140). Perthshire —One 
was shot at Murthly on November 2nd, 1903 (a late date 
for so far north) (T. G. Laidlaw, t.c., 1904, p. 55). Dumfries- 
shire.-—One was killed on September 3rd, 1903, at Noblehill 
(R. Service, t.c., 1904, p. 69). Shetland.—One was shot in 
Spiggie Marsh on September 25th, 1901 (t.c., 1902, p. 135). 
This may be the same as the bird referred to in the 
** Zoologist,” 1901, p. 391. Orkney.—One was shot at. 
Stornoway on November 24th, 1906 (Field, 1906, p. 908). 

IRELAND.—One was heard calling several nights early in 
May, 1900, in a swamp at Cappagh, co. Waterford (R. J. 
Ussher, Irish Nat., 1900, p. 160); it has twice been recorded 
as breeding in Ireland. One was shot on October 8th, 1904, 
near Templepatrick, co. Antrim (W. H. Workman, t.c., 1904, 
p: 261). 

CAROLINA CRAKE Porzana carolina (L.). 8S. page 510. 

A young male, which had completed the autumn moult, 
was shot by Mr. E. Lort Phillips on October 25th, 1901, when 
snipe shooting with Mr. F. G. Gunnis in Rounach bog at the 
- west end of Tiree, Inner Hebrides. The bird was very fat 
Se b.O-C., XIL., p. 20; Ann..S.N.H.,, 1902, p: 9). The 
species has been twice previously recorded in this country 
(Berkshire, 1864, Cardiff, 1888), and since it has been recorded 
several times in Greenland and breeds far north in North 
America, we think it should be admitted fully to the British 

LITTLE CRAKE Porzana parva (Scop.). 8S. page 511. 

SussEx.—One was caught near Rye in June, 1904 (N. F. T.). 

SHROPSHIRE.—One was shot in November, 1898, at Petton 
Park, near Shrewsbury (H. E. Forrest, Zool., 1900, p. 280). 

IRELAND.—One was shot near Rathangan, co. Kildare, 
on November 12th, 1903 (Williams and Son, Zool., 1903, p- 
460). The bird has only once before occurred in Ireland. 

(l'io be continued.) 


It may be of interest to record that a pair of Pied Wagtails 
have this year reared three broods from nests built in some 
ivy at one end of the house here (Stonewall Park, Edenbridge, 
Kent). The first brood of four left the nest on May 2nd. 
The second ‘ brood ”’ consisted of a Cuckoo, which left the 
nest on June 28th. The third nest contained three young, 
which fledged on August Ist. The Wagtails continued to 
feed the young Cuckoo until just before their third brood 

K. G. B. MeapE-WALDoO. 


At the meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Club, held on 
June 17th, 1908, I exhibited a series of Bullfinches, clearly 
showing that the British race differed from its nearest ally, 
the Pyrrhula pyrrhula europea, of Central Europe. ‘The 
differences are, that the British race is slightly smaller, and 
that the female has the back darker brown, and the under- 
surface conspicuously darker and browner. The male, on 
the other hand, does not differ very appreciably in colour, 
though, if a series is compared, it is evident that the British 
form has the red of the underside as well as the grey of the 
upper-surface somewhat less brilliant. 

At the meeting several members asked if I had compared 
the British Bullfinch with the great Northern Bullfinch 
Pyrrhula pyrrhula pyrrhula. To all who know these birds 
it is needless to remark that a comparison with the latter 
subspecies was unnecessary, as it is still larger and more 
briliant than P. pyrrhula europea, the grey of the upperside 
being purer, and the red of the under-surface brighter. 

The somewhat darker and duller coloration of our British 
Bullfinch, and its slightly smaller size, again confirms the 
general inclination of British forms to be duller or darker, 
and often smaller than their continental representatives. 

The name of the British Bullfinch must be— : 


Under this name (Pyrrhula pileata) Macgillivray described it 
in 1837, in Vol. I., p. 407, of his “‘ History of British Birds.” 

NOTES. 131 

Of its distribution he says :—‘‘ The Bullfinch is generally 
distributed in Britain, occurring in most of our wooded and 
cultivated districts, but avoiding bare maritime tracts, as 
well as the northern islands, which are destitute of wood.” 
Then, at the end of the article he adds :—‘‘ The Common 
Bullfinch is said by authors to be of general occurrence in 
the northern and temperate parts of Europe.” It is thus 
quite clear that Macgillivray described the British Bullfinch, 
and that only, for he merely adds that it is “‘ said by authors ”’ 
to inhabit great parts of Europe besides. The author also 
says that he has “not observed any remarkable differences 
between individuals, indicating the existence of two species 
usually confounded, although I have heard it said that such 
have been met with.” It follows that Macgillivray never 
came across the Northern Bullfinch, which occurs, though 
very rarely, as a straggler in England. 

The case of the name of the British Bullfinch appears to 
me to be different from that of the Lesser Spotted Wood- 
pecker. Macgillivray also bestowed a new name on this 
species in his work on “ British Birds” (Vol. III., p. 86), 
calling it Picus striolatus. But then he says that he changed 
its name to striolatus because this species was by no means 
the smallest of even the Spotted Woodpeckers, and he 
regards this bird as “peculiar to Europe,” saying that it is 
‘said to be more abundant in the northern parts of Europe 
than in France and Germany,” while it has not been found 
in Scotland, nor even in many parts of England. I therefore 
take it that Macgillivray re-named the “ European ” Linnean 
Lesser Woodpecker, and consequently I bestowed a new name 
on the British Lesser Spotted Woodpecker (antea Vol. I., 
p. 221). On the other hand, I think that we can safely adopt 
the name pileata for the British Bullfinch, and thus avoid 
creating a new name for this bird. 



Mr. G. H. Hiason kindly sends the following note from the 
huntsman of the Ynysfor Hounds, whom he describes as a 
very keen and accurate observer :— 

“On the evening of May 24th I strolled down as far as the 
marsh to look for some nests, and found a Meadow Pipit’s, 
with four eggs, quite cold. The little birds were following a 
Cuckoo close by, so I laid down in the rushes on the side of a 
ditch, within five yards of the nest, and watched. Presently 
the Cuckoo alighted near, and walking up to the nest, picked 


up one of the Pipit’s eggs in her beak. This she put aside, 
about two feet off, and then, walking back, she stooped with 
her wings half raised, and laid her egg about three or four 
inches from the side of the nest. She then turned round 
and pushed the egg most carefully with her beak into the nest. 
Then she picked up the Pipit’s egg in her beak and flew away, 
dropping it about twenty yards further on. The Meadow 
Pipits were there, looking on as if they knew what she was 
doing, for they stopped there and did not follow the Cuckoo.” 


In the August number of British Birps, p. 84, some .ad- 
ditional information is furnished regarding the Tufted Duck 
as a Scottish bird. Among other items, there is one upon 
which I, and I am sure others, would welcome further 
information. I allude to Mr. Harvie-Brown’s averment 
that ‘“‘ Macgillivray states that it was formerly a common 
bird in the Outer Hebrides.” This statement is not only of 
considerable interest but has highly important bearings 
on the history of this species as a British bird, and I would 
ask Mr. Harvie-Brown to tell us where Macgillivray published 
the information. I have failed to find it in that distinguished 
naturalist’s writings with which I am acquainted, or in any 
of Mr. Harvie-Brown’s faunal works or papers, except in the 
“Fauna of the N.W. Highlands” (from which you quote), 
where, however, the desired reference is not afforded. 



In the August number of this magazine (p. 85) attention is 
drawn to my old friend, the late Dr. A. C. Stark’s, record of 
the breeding of the Scaup at Loch Leven in 1880, under the 
impression that it had been overlooked by Howard Saunders. 
As a matter of fact, however, Saunders did not overlook the 
record, with which he was perfectly familiar. He specially 
cited it, both in the fourth edition of “ Yarrell,’ and in the 
first edition of his own ‘“‘ Manual” (1889). But a note in the 
Appendix to the latter foreshadowed its suppression in the 
second edition. The note is as follows :—‘‘ As regards Mr. 
A. C. Stark’s very positive and detailed account (Pr. R. 
Phys. Soc. Edin., VII., p. 203) of the breeding of this species 
on Loch Leven, Mr. W. Evans informs me that he subsequently 
accompanied Mr. Stark to that spot several times and they 

NOTES. 153 

failed to identify a single Scaup, though Tufted Ducks were 
abundant, as they had been for years previously.” In 
December, 1897, when working at the second edition of the 
‘**Manual,”’ Saunders gave me to understand, in a letter now 
before me, that he was dropping the record, having made up 
his mind it was a case of “‘ mistaken identification.” 

During part of the time when Stark was studying medicine 
in Edinburgh, he and I frequently took ornithological rambles 
together, and delightful outings they were, for Stark was a 
most interesting companion. It was in 1882 that he exhibited 
the “ Scaup’s ”’ nest and eggs to the Royal Physical Society, 
and the following year I twice accompanied him to Loch Leven 
in the nesting season. Of course we looked out for Scaups, 
but could detect none. Tufted Ducks, however, were 
common, and we found several of their nests. The Tufted 
Duck, it should be noted, had been proved to breed there eight 
years before, and had probably done so for a much longer 
period (cf. my notes on the species in Ann. S.N.H., 1896, pp. 
148-155). It seemed strange that Scaups only, that is, as op- 
posed to Tufted Ducks, were noted by Stark in 1880, and he 
frankly admitted the possibility of his having made a mistake 
in identification. I may here say that he frequently com- 
plained of injury to his eyesight through using the micro- 
scope. The opinion I then formed, and still hold, is that 
the nest in question was not a Scaup’s but a Tufted Duck’s. 
When the nest and eggs were on view in Stevens’ auction 
rooms in June, 1902, 1 asked Saunders to tell me what he 
thought of them. His reply was: “I should say Tufted, 
decidedly.”’ I do not know into whose hands this lot passed 
at the sale. Perhaps some reader of BritisH Brrps can 

tell me. WILLIAM EVANS. 

[Although we much regret having omitted to refer to the 
first edition of the “ Manual,” we are not altogether sorry to 
have been instrumental in resuscitating this erroneous record, 
since it has drawn forth these interesting details from Mr. W. 
Evans. The original record is a very important one and is 
very positively stated in the fourth edition of ‘ Yarrell,” 
and it is only right that all ornithologists should be put in 
possession of the exact facts with regard to it, so that they can 
judge for themselves. The details in the Appendix to the 
first edition of the ““ Manual” miss a very important point, 
viz., that Stark noted only Scaups in 1880, and the entire 
suppression of the record in the second edition, coupled with 
the comment that “‘ assertions respecting the breeding of this 
species in Scotland lack confirmation,” issomewhat misleading 


to those who do not possess the first edition. We fear that 
someone bought these eggs as veritable Scaup’s, for they 
fetched £2 7s. 6d. at the Stark sale in 1902. We have to 
thank Messrs. A. H. Evans, J. A. Harvie-Brown, and Heatley 
Noble for having also drawn our attention to this error.— 

H. F. W. & N.F. T.] 


As I have elsewhere pointed out, the distribution of the 
Common Scoter in Scotland is peculiar, e.g., Caithness and 
part of North Scotland, or “the Pentland area,” low-lying 
lochs of the flow-lands; the high-lying mountain lochs 
of certain remoter portions of Inverness-shire along the 
direction of the Great Fault of the Caledonian Canal; [the 
Isle of Tiree, uncertain ?]; and Ireland, as shown above on 
p. 86. J. A. Harviz-Brown. 


Durine the first week of June last three Sand-Grouse 
(Syrrhaptes paradoxus) were observed in a field of young 
corn in the eastern portion of Cleveland. Shortly afterwards 
one of them was picked up, dead; and I have had an 
opportunity of examining this specimen, which is a male in 
excellent plumage. The other two birds were seen at intervals 
until the middle of June, when they both disappeared. 

T. H. NELson. 

On July 4th last I obtained a satisfactory view of three 
Pallas’s Sand-Grouse on the sand-hills north of Littlestone. 


On June 19th, and for a fortnight previously, a Green-backed 
Gallinule (Porphyrio smaragdonotus) was seen at Horsey by 
three different marshmen, one of whom recognised the bird 
from having seen a locally killed specimen some years 
previously, and the other two men’s independent description 
was unmistakable. M: CC. He-Sigp, 


On June 18th, 1908, I found on a lake island in Ireland a 
clutch of four abnormal eggs of (presumably) the Ringed 
Plover (4gialitis hiaticola). In colour they were of a light 
greenish-blue, and without markings. The surface of the 
shells was somewhat rough, and with only one of them was it 

NO'TES. 135 
necessary to make full use of the drill ; in two of them a slight 
pressure of the drill only was required to penetrate a black 
and rotten spot on the shells. In the fourth there was a slight 
exudation of the contents through a small aperture with black 
edges. ‘The site, too, of the nest was abnormal, for it was 
by the side of a small dead shrub, with a ragged robin and 
another plant close by it. The nest itself was a depression in 
damp moss. I find on reference to my notebook, that on 
May 10th, 1906, there were on the same island three Ringed 
Plover’s eggs (normal) in a depression (lined with dead rushes) 
in mossy soil—though possibly on this island there is no spot 
that would give a normal Ringed Plover’s nest, there is a 
considerable tract on the mainland, some two or three hundred 
yards off, where these birds nest in normal surroundings, 
and here in 1906 and 1907 I found very similar eggs to the 
faulty eggs of this year, it seems to me probable that they 
were all laid by one and the same bird. H. TREVELYAN. 

[Major Trevelyan has kindly allowed us to submit the nest 
and eggs to the Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain, who reports upon them 
as follows :—‘t The eggs are certainly remarkable. The faint 
streaks at the end suggest those of Sandpipers, and so does the 
nest. However, I do not attach much importance to the 
latter, as from Major Trevelyan’s letter it is clear that the bird 
only made the depression in the moss and placed one or two 
straws in it. Measurements in this case give little help, and 
weights are not of much use. White eggs are usually larger 
than normally-coloured ones, and these are obviously imperfect 
and prematurely laid, so that the weight would not be a safe 
test. I think, however, I have found a good criterion in the 
colour of the inside of the shell. Ringed Plovers’ eggs, when 
fresh, show a distinct greenish tint, which fades somewhat, 
but is generally perceptible. Sandpipers’ eggs I have always 
found yellowish inside. These eggs show a very distinct 
green when looked at against the light, and on that account 
I should ascribe them to the Ringed Plover rather than to 
the Common Sandpiper. A tendency ‘towards the same 
aberration occurs also in the case of the Lapwing, Ruff, and 
Woodcock, but is rare among Limicoline birds on the whole. 

Dr. Ottosson tells me (in ltt.) that he has a clutch of Ringed 
Plover’s eggs pale blue in colour, without any markings, and 
there is an abnormal set in Mr. P. F. Bunyard’s collection 
with very pale bluish-green ground and a few fine jet-black 
spots and large underlying dark grey blotches; a clutch of 
spotless bluish-green Curlew’s eggs is recorded in the 
‘Zoologist ’ (1903, p. 352) from Brecon.’’—F. C. R. J.] 



In reference to Mr. Pycraft’s article on the nest of the Ringed 
Plover (Vol. I., p. 373), it may be worth while to give details 
of a somewhat unusual nest which I found with four fresh 
eggs on July 2nd at Langston Harbour, near Portsmouth. 
The nest was formed of small pebbles, and a few little pieces 
of broken shell. It completely filled a rather deep hoof-mark 
of a cow in sun-baked mud. There were 2000 pebbles, 
weighing seven ounces, and they must have been collected 
from a distance of twenty yards. H. Lynzs. 


On April 15th I was shown by a gamekeeper a Lapwing’s 
(Vanellus vulgaris) nest with five eggs. JI examined the eggs 
carefully, and found incubation had just begun. All the eggs 
were exactly similar, and looked as if laid by the same bird. 
The nest was in the middle of a large grass field, and no 
other Lapwings but the one pair were within half to three- 
quarters of a mile. The estate is strictly preserved, and no 
boys had been near to interfere, nor had the keeper any 
object in placing the fifth egg there. I think all were laid, 
without doubt, by the same bird, and as the case seems to be 
a perfectly authentic one I think it may be worth recording. 
R. H. Rarrray. 

[The Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain informs us that he has notes 
of the occurrence of five eggs in one nest in the case of the 
following species of Limicole :—Golden Plover, Lapwing 
(numerous instances), Redshank, Snipe, Common Sandpiper, 
Solitary Sandpiper and Curlew.—Ebs. | 


WHEN walking along the coast of Kent on July 18th last, I put 
up a Sandpiper which, from its very dark colour, I knew to 
be something out of the ordinary. I marked the bird down 
and stalked it behind a sandbank, getting to within seven 
or eight yards of it. Owing to its very dark greenish- 
brown plumage and pure white underparts, pale brown 
throat, and dark Sandpiper bill and legs, I concluded that 
I had obtained an exceptionally fortunate view of the Green 
Sandpiper. To make absolutely certain of its identity, I 
put it up, expecting to see the pure white rump, but, to my 
surprise, the rump was the same colour as the back, the white 
only coming up on either side, as in the Common Sandpiper. 

NOTES. 137 

I again stalked it, and put it up once more, and am 
now perfectly certain that it was a Solitary Sandpiper 
(Totanus solitarius). The first time I got near the bird I 
saw that there were two of the same kind, but I was only 
able to follow the one when they flew off. 

I am very well acquainted with the Common Sandpiper 
(Totanus hypoleucus), having had ample opportunities of 
watching it on the Tay in Scotland, in Devonshire on the 
Tamar, occasionally at Woburn, and in innumerable other 
places. Not only does the very dark plumage of Totanus 
solitarius make it easy to distinguish from T'otanus hypoleucus, 
but the wing bar, which is so conspicuous in the latter bird 
in flight, was absent. I may add that I have had: several 
opportunities of watching Wood-Sandpipers at close quarters 
this summer, and on one occasion the Green Sandpiper. 

On July 14th there was a small flock of eight or ten 
Sanderlings, also on the Kentish coast. On July 18th their 
numbers had greatly increased, as I first came across a party 
of thirty-one, then another of thirteen, and later on as the 
tide went out they were to be seen in small groups all along 
the shore. Nearly all of them still retained their red throats. 
On July 20th I saw a Curlew-Sandpiper with very red throat 
and breast, and small parties of Whimbrel were occasionally 
seen between the 13th and 21st. M. BEDFORD. 

[On going to press we learn that a Solitary Sandpiper was shot 
~ at Littlestone on August 15th, and this seems confirmatory of 
the Duchess of Bedford’s most careful observations. Her 
Grace is to be sincerely congratulated on having succeeded in 
an identification of such difficulty.—EDs. | 


Durine a visit to Canterbury in July last, in order to examine 
the bird collection there, I found in the Hammond Collection, 
which was bequeathed to the town in 1903, a specimen of a 
Petrel which at once attracted my attention. After com- 
paring it with the Manx Shearwaters in the same case, and 
noting its points of difference, I consulted Dr. Godman’s 
“Monograph of the Petrels” on my return home. I have 
not the slightest hesitation in pronouncing this bird to be a 
Levantine Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouanus). 

The birds in the Hammond Collection are admirably housed 
and cared for, but, like those in almost every local museum 
that I have seen, urgently require proper labelling, and in 


this collection there are no labels at all except those which 
were attached by the original owner, and these are so small 
that it is extremely difficult to read many of them. With 
regard to the present bird, it has two hanging labels attached 
to its legs, in the late Mr. Oxenden Hammond’s writing, which 
read as follows :—*‘ Petrel undescribed, picked up dead at 
Wingham” [Kent] “‘ about 1865. Considered a new species 
by Gould ; see his autograph attached. Mr. Howard Saunders 
has a closely resembling specimen from Gibraltar, but without 
the rosy breast; he thinks it must be the Mediterranean 
form of Puffinus anglorum, but does not feel sure.” ‘ Breast 
rosy, like an adult Goosander.”’ 

I think we may take it that such a good ornithologist as 
the late Mr. Oxenden Hammond would not have stated that 
the bird was picked up at Wingham if he had any doubt on 
the point, and from his remark on the “ rosy breast,’ which 
has, of course, now disappeared, the bird must have been 
very recently dead when it came into his hands. 

I was not aware that any of the Petrels ever had this rosy 
tint in life, and I cannot find any mention of it with regard 
to the present species. 

Mr. Hammond does not appear to have taken any further 
steps to have the identification of the bird made certain, and 
I presume thought that he was not justified in publishing 
the record, since Saunders expressed some uncertainty. 

This bird is an example of the darker phase of the Levantine 
Shearwater in which the yellowish-brown wash on the flanks 
extends across the belly, and to a rather less extent up the 
breast. In other respects it exhibits the distinctive features 
of this species very clearly. It is a little larger than the Manx 
Shearwater, and the bill and wings are both slightly longer. 
The back is a deep brown instead of black, the under tail- 
coverts are brown instead of white, and as has been said 
above, there is no pure white on the breast and belly, which 
are everywhere washed with brown, and this is most intense 
on the flanks. The feathers of the breast also are mottled 
with dusky-grey. N. F. TickHurst. 

x % 

GOLDEN ORIOLE IN FIFESHIRE.—A female Oriolus galbula 
is reported by the Misses Rintoul and Baxter as having been 
obtained at Markinch on May 13th, 1908 (Ann. S.N.H., 1908, 
p- 180). 

rences of Lanius excubitor are recorded in Mr. John Patterson’s 
useful ‘‘ Report on Scottish Ornithology for 1907” (Ann. 

NOTES. 139 

S.N.H., p. 137). The following we have not previously 
referred to :—Mull.—One, March 9th. Pentland Skerries.— 
One, September 24th. Shetlands——One flew on _ board 
a boat twenty miles out on September 26th. North 
Berwick.—One, October 12th. Gilston (Fife)—One, Novem- 
ber 4th; one, November 28th (another is recorded at this 
place by the Misses Rintoul and Baxter (t.c., p. 180) on April 
22nd, 1908). Colinsburgh.—Two in November. Auch- 
nasheen.—One, December 2nd. Another recorded in our 
pages (Vol. I., p. 263) by the Duchess of Bedford, is not 
referred to. 

Woopcuat SHRIKE IN SussEx.—Mr. J. A. Clark records 
that a male Lanius pomeranus was shot near Rye on September 
15th, 1907 (Zool., 1908, p. 269). 

omitted to refer to an interesting record of apparently the 
first breeding of Muscicapa atricapilla in Ayrshire, viz., at 
Glendoune, in 1907 (cf. M. Young, Ann. S.N.H., 1907, p 

CANARY SERIN IN ScorLtanp.—Mr. J. A. Harvie-Brown 
records (Ann. S.N.H., 1908, p. 181) that a specimen of 
Serinus canarius was captured, in company with Linnets, at 
Springkerse, near Stirling, at the end of November, 1907. 
The bird had no appearance of previous confinement, and 
it was alive and still rather wild on May 29th, 1908. Mr. 
Harvie-Brown does not actually claim it as a truly wild 
wanderer, but we wonder if it would be so claimed by anyone 
less cautious were it to escape again ! 

Hughes-Onslow writes that he had an excellent view on July 
2nd last of a specimen of Pastor roscus on some sandy ground 
near Reay, in Caithness (Meld, 11, vi1., 08, p. 91). 

DomeED Nests or JackpAws.—Mr. T. T. Mackeith records 
that he found in May, 1907, in West Renfrewshire, some 
Jackdaws’ nests which were large structures, roofed over with 
sticks, with a hole large enough to admit the bird. They were 
built in spruce fir trees (Zool., 1908, p. 232). This reminds 
us that Mr. W. Wells Bladen has for several years reported 
the occurrence of similar nests of the Jackdaw in Staffordshire 
(cf. Trans. N. Staffs. F. Club, 1901). Another domed nest 
of this bird was found by Mr. C. E. Wright near Kettering 
(er. Journ. Norths. N.H. Soc., 1899, p. 174). The Rev. 


F. C. R. Jourdain found a colony in Shropshire in 1901 
(cf. Eggs of Europ. Birds, p. 16), and other instances have 
been recorded. | 

SupposED ALPINE Swirt IN NortH Dervon.—Mr. T. H. 
Briggs records (Zool., 1908, p. 269) that he saw “recently” a 
Swift which he identifies as Cypselus melba, flymg low at 
Lynmouth. His attention was directed to the “size” of the 
bird—presumably the large size which is, of course, a very 
striking characteristic of this species; but Mr. Briggs goes on 
to say that he distinctly ‘‘saw the grey underside” of the 
bird as it flew over his head. The Alpine Swift looks very 
white underneath when flying, and the use of the word 
‘‘orey”’ in describing this distinctive characteristic makes us 
doubtful of the identification being correct. There was a 
sea-fog at the time. 

Snowy Owl IN THE OvuTER HeEBRIDES.—Mr. J. A. Harvie- 
Brown records a fine example of Nyctea scandiaca shot on 
South Uist in October, 1907 (Ann. S.N.H., 1908, p. 182). 

Scops Own IN FrresHirRE.—A female Scops giw was 
obtained near Largo. The Scops Owl has been recorded 
only eight times previously in Scotland. (W. Evans, Ann. 
S.N.H., 1908, 183). 

Montacu’s HArRIER IN SuRREY.—Mr. Collingwood Ingram 
reports (Zool., 1908, pp. 308-311) that a pair of Montagu’s 
Harriers nested in Surrey this year in the same place as those 
recorded last year (cf. antea, Vol. I., pp. 237 and 351). 
Unfortunately the eggs failed to hatch. The nest was carefully 
protected by a Royal Society for the Protection of Birds’ 
watcher, but possibly too much attention was paid to the 
nest by observers and photographers. 

N. Bonar writes that a specimen of Botaurus stellaris (the third 
observed in East Lothian this year) was picked up dead on 
Gullane Links in April (Ann. S.N.H., 1908, p. 183). 

and A. L. Thomson satisfactorily identified two specimens 
of Anas strepera (a very rare bird in the district) in the estuary 
of the Don on September Ist, 1907 (Ann. S.N.H., 1908, 
p. 184). 

PINTAILS IN SHETLAND.—A pair of Dafila acuta was found 
breeding at Dunrossness in 1905 (cf. antea, p.54). Mr. Harvie- 
Brown now announces that there are four or five pairs there 
this year (Ann. S.N.H., 1908, p. 184). 




1A Work ‘on this subject, ‘illustrated: with ‘BEAUTIFULLY - 
COLOURED PLATES, is now being issued. . 

Write for Full Prospectus and a Part for inspection to 

14, Henrietta Street, Covent snl London, W.C. 


Naturalists’ Camera, 
19007, MODEL, 

For Telephoto or Ordinary: LENSES. 

Lenses are used 

Dy the most 

A skilled Bird 


The following “are—» 
specially recommended : 

THE STIGMATIC SERIES Il. F/6 (Convertible.) 

(A Rapid Long Focus Lens at a Moderate Price.) 

- High or Moderate Power Telephoto Lenses. (Original Make). 
We are Specialists in Cameras and Apparatus for Photo- Ornithologists. ns 

J. H. DALLMEYER, Limitep, beNziL rob.. 

Showrooms: 25, NEWMAN sm, W. “NEASDEN, LONDON, Mt; 


Raturalists, | 
‘And Manufacturers of CABINETS and APPARATUS for Entomology, Birds’ Eee 
and Skins, and all Branches of: Natural History. «> 

Speciality: —Objects for Nature Study, Drawing ees &e. 


All Books: and Publications on ‘Natural History sippliea.- 

36, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. (Five Doors from | aa ‘ros,) : 

Gutslowns eke pp.) post free. 

BRITISH BIRDS, Vol. /1., Pl. 4. 


(Photographed by Miss Turner.) 





Boeri) BY H.-F. WITHERBY, F-.25., M:B.0.U. 
eeoislED -BY W. P. PYCRAFT, A.LS, M.B.0.U. 

ConTENTS OF NuMBER 5, VoL. II. OctTosBER 1, 1908. 

Green Woodpecker versus Starling, by Emma L. Turner, 

F.u.S. (Plate IV.) .. ip ee ae a : 
On the More Important Additions to our Knowledge of 

British Birds since 1899, by H. F. Witherby and N. F. 

Ticehurst. Part XIV.—(continued from page 129) is 146 
Some Early British Ornithologists and their Works, by 

W. H. Mullens, M.A., LL.M., M.B.0.u. III.—Christopher 

Merrett (1614—1695)—(continued from page 118) ee 151 
Notes :—Old English Nesting Bottles (E. G. B. Meade- 

Waldo). Black Redstarts in Merioneth (H. E. Forrest). 

Black-headed Wagtail in Kent (J. B. Nichols). Great 

Grey Shrike in Scotland (H. W. Robinson). Two- 

barred Crossbill in Sussex (J. B. Nichols). Tufted 

Ducks Nesting in the Outer Hebrides (J. A. Harvie- 

Brown). Distribution of the Common Scoter in 

Scotland (H. W. Robinson). Pallas’s Sand-Grouse in 

Cheshire (T. A. Coward). Supposed Black Grouse and 

Ptarmigan from Irish Caves (R. J. Ussher). The Oyster- 

eatcher’s Method of Feeding on the Edible Mussel. 

Killdeer Plover in Kent (N. F. Ticehurst). Solitary 

Sandpiper in Kent (N. F. Ticehurst). Late Nests of 

the Great Crested and Little Grebes (A. G. Leigh), etc. 164 
Review :—How to Attract and Protect Wild Birds .. he 172 

Page 141 


(PratEH FV.) 

WHILE wandering about soon after dawn on the morning 
of May 8th, I came across one of the most amusing 
incidents connected with bird life which I have ever 

A pair of Green Woodpeckers, after having for some 
years enjoyed undisputed possession of a nesting hole in 
an oak tree, were engaged in a “‘tooth-and-nail”’ encounter 
with a pair of Starlings which were maliciously en- 
deavouring to obtain possession of their neighbour’s 


home. The dispute raged continuously till May 14th, 
when I settled it by putting up a nesting-box for the 
Starlings; this they immediately annexed, and ultimately 
both pairs brought off their respective broods in safety 
and comparative peace. | 

During the campaign I saw much that was both 
interesting and amusing in the tactics employed by the 
opponents. While the Woodpeckers were undoubtedly 
the more powerful birds, the determination, readiness of 
wit and general finesse of the active and irrepressible 
Starlings commanded my respect. 

The following is an account of what happened on May 
9th between 6 a.m. and 3 p.m. and is typical of all the 
after days of warfare, during which, however, I only 
watched at odd times for two or three hours at a stretch. 

When I arrived on the scene the Woodpeckers 
flew away, being shy and easily alarmed, but soon 
returned when I hid myself. The moment the Starlings 
were left to themselves they carried into the hole every 
available bit of twig and rubbish they could seize, 
working together with a feverish energy that made me 
feel tired, so that in five minutes they seemed to have 
collected ample material for several nests! By-and-by, 
however, a Woodpecker would return, then one Starling 
carried on the fight while the other, when possible, 
continued the nest building with more or less success ; 
sometimes holding the entrance of the citadel while its 
rightful owner clung to the outside (see page 144), looking 
in and out and ali around but not always daring to take 
possession. For although undoubtedly the stronger, 
and able to hold her own when once inside the tree, the 
Woodpecker seemed unable to cope with her smaller and 
more active opponents at close quarters. If she 
ventured inside when either or both Starlings were in 
possession a desperate scuffle could be heard which 
generally ended in the defeat and ejection of the Wood- 
pecker, but not always. On one occasion I saw the 
Woodpecker seize a Starling by the beak and drag it 


forth, then slipping inside she soon ejected the other, 
but this was when her mate was near. The male 
Woodpecker did not take his fair share of the fight 
while I was watching, and often the hen bird would lean 
half out of the nest (see Plate 4) and call to him in soft 
complaining tones, but his answering cry generally came 
from a long distance off, and she was left for hours to 
continue the combat alone. 

The Starlings, on the contrary, worked well together 
and sometimes a third came to their assistance. How- 
ever, when once the Woodpecker gained possession of 
her home the Starlings literally had not a “look in,” 
but sat disconsolately on a branch near at hand and 
watched, by no means without protest, while the Wood- 
pecker slowly and daintily threw out each twig until the 
ground beneath the tree was strewn with débris. I wish 
it had beeri possible to obtain photographs of this part 
of the proceedings because the obvious enjoyment of the 
Woodpecker as she did this was worth recording. After 
watching every bit of rubbish till it reached the ground. 
she looked up at the discomfited pair of Starlings 
between each act and chuckled softly with her head on 
one side, while the lookers-on gave vent to sundry 
long-drawn-out screeches of disapproval. There was a 
particularly large and dry laurel leaf which one Starling 
had wrestled with and carried into the hole after great 
struggles, because its stiffness and length impeded the 
bird’s flight. When this treasure was thrown out and 
fell to the ground with a dry rattle, both Starlings 
whistled so plaintively that I laughed aloud and 
frightened the Woodpecker so that she fled. Then the 
Starlings had another “ innings,” and for half an hour did 
what they pleased and threw out a large quantity of the 
wooden chips dear to the Woodpecker; but at noon 
the rightful owners again had full possession until 2.15, 
when something disturbed them, and the enemy held 
the citadel till 3 p.m., when I left, after seeing the Wood- 
peckers once more reinstated. 


A favourite trick of the Starlings was to sit on‘a 
branch some little distance away and “ yaffle.”’ This 
at first always lured the Woodpecker from her hole, and 
during the week of fighting the Starlings became very 
proficient in ‘“‘ yaffling,” but after a time the Wood- 

Guarding the Entrance. (Photographed by Miss Turner.) 

pecker learnt wisdom and was not deceived. So the 
fight alternated for a week until I began to fear for the 
ultimate success of the rightful owners of the nesting 
site, and even went so far as to harden my heart and 
consult with the powers that be as to the advisability 
of shooting the robbers. On one occasion, however, there 


had been three Starlings and one Woodpecker inside the 
tree together ; so it seemed more than probable that, if 
this marauding pair suffered the extreme penalty of the 
law for their sins, others might carry on the feud. 
Consequently, the nesting-box was tried first, with happy 
results ; for the Starlings occupied it the same evening 
(May 14th), and their young ones were fledged on June 
19th, while the young Woodpeckers flew away a week later. 
Evidently even in wild nature the strongest does not 
always win, art and science hold their own. This the 
Starlings seemed to know well when they pitted their 
wits against mere physical strength ; for it seemed to me 
they would win finally by mere persistence and cunning. 

When very agitated, the Green Woodpecker would 
rapidly ascend the bole of a neighbouring beech, and as 
rapidly descend backwards in a curiously jerky manner, 
as if she were climbing hand over hand down a rope. 
I have never before seen any of the Woodpeckers 
descend in this manner.* Owing to the height of the 
nesting hole I was obliged to use a telephoto lens, the 
slowness of which, added to the darkness of the wood, 
made it impossible to obtain photographs of the amusing 
attitudes and fighting tactics of these birds, and, when 
the young were hatched out, the surrounding foliage had 
become so dense as to make it practically impossible to 
get any picture with aslow lens. Out of some fifty plates 
exposed, the two accompanying photographs (from which 
part of the background has been taken out) were almost 
the only result worth mentioning; but the enthusiastic 
photographer, even if unsuccessful in his art, sees so 
much of wonder and beauty that he has no cause to 
srumble if the pictorial results are not always just what 
he hoped for. 

* This article was received before the publication of Col. Feilden’s 
note on this subject (see p. 93).—EDs. 

ie EY ae 



Parw XFYV: 

(Continued from page 129.) 

BAILLON’S CRAKE Porzana bailloni (Vieill.). 

EssEx.—One was caught by a dog near Dagenham on 
October 3rd, 1874, and is now in the museum of the Essex 
Field Club (Field, 2, 111., 04). - 

SURREY.—One was caught alive in Church Street, Godal- 
ming, in 1837, and is in the Charterhouse collection. An adult 
female was also caught alive between Mitcham and Carshalton 
about the end of May, 1847 (J. A. Bucknill, B. of Surrey, 
p. 274). ! 

Sussex.—One was killed against the telegraph wires on 
Pett Level in June, 1907 (N.F.T., cf. antea, Vol. 1, p. 359). 

Kent.—A female was shot by Captain R. Alexander near 
Lydd, on November 24th, 1906 (R.E.C., Field, 22, xt1., 
1906 = .c/ antea; Vol. 4a= p.- 309). 

HAMPSHIRE.—Four occurrences are noted (Kelsall and 
Munn, B. of Hants, p. 271). 

NortH Wates.—A male was caught by a dog in a ditch 
near Colwyn Bay on November 6th, 1905 (H. E. Forrest, 
Zool., 1905, p. 465). 

CHESHIRE.—An adult male was captured alive near Stock- 
port in May, 1905 (T. A. Coward, t.c., 1906, p. 395). 

ScoTtanpD.—A female was shot at Thurso in September, 
1898 (W. Arkwright, Ann. S.N.H., 1899, p. 50). 

[ALLEN’S GALLINULE Porphyriola alleni (Thompson). 

An immature example of this African species alighted on a 
fishing-boat off Hopton, near Yarmouth, on January lst, 
1902, and was captured (J. H. Gurney, Zool., 1902, p. 98). 
The species has occurred in the winter in Italy and Sicily, 
and it is possible that this bird was a genuine storm- 
driven migrant. The specimen is now in the possession of Mr. 


J. B. Nichols. It may be noted that a bird of this species 
has been recorded as having been caught at sea 190 miles off 
the coast of Liberia. | 

CRANE Grus communis Bechst. 8S. page 521. 

NorFrotk.—On April 7th, 1898, four were seen by 
Mr. Pashley near Glaven, and they were afterwards 
reported at Weybourne, and again at Runton, after 
which they took their departure (J. H. Gurney, Zool., 
1899, p. 119). An immature bird was seen for about 
three weeks near Great Yarmouth in April, 1906 (J. E. 
Knights, ¢.c., 1906, p. 194). 

ScoTLAND.—A young bird appeared at the Pentland 
Skerries on May Ist, 1903, and was shot two days 
aiterwards (J. Tomison, Ann. S.N.H., 1903, p. 186). 
One was seen in North Shetland on May 16th, 1906 
ole Hy. Saxby, ¢.c., 1907, p. 50). Qne was shot near 
Stornoway on May 14th, 1906. The species had not 
previously been recorded from the Outer Hebrides 
(N. B. Kinnear, t.c., 1907, p. 84). 

GREAT BUSTARD Otis tarda L. 8S. page 523. 

InTRODUCTION.—In 1900 seventeen were imported 
from Spain and placed by Lord Walsingham on Lord 
Iveagh’s estate at Elvedon, Norfolk. Fifteen survived 
the winter (they were feather pinioned), but they then 
left their secure retreat, where they had a run of some 
800 acres, and appear to have dispersed over the country. 
Several were soon shot, and the whereabouts of four only 
were known at the end of 1901. By the end of the 
following year only two remained. They appear to have 
laid eggs, but no young hatched, and the experiment 
must be deemed an entire failure. 

[IRELAND.—Two were seen near Thurles, co. Tip- 
perary, and one of them was shot on December 20th, 
1902 (Williams & Son, Field, 1903, p. 447). There is 
no previous authentic record of the occurrence of this 
bird in Ireland, and we think that these examples may 
have been ‘“‘ escapes.’? We believe that all the intro- 
duced birds mentioned above have not even yet been 
accounted for. | 

[LINCOLNSHIRE.—Two females were killed, one at 
Weelsby, the other at Tetney, on December 15th and 
29th, 1902 (G. H. Caton Haigh, Zool., 1903, p. 368). 
These are looked upon by Mr. Gurney (t.c., p. 125) as 


genuine migrants, and not part of the Norfolk introduced 
birds, but there seems no proof for this. ] 

JERSEY.—Two were shot on King’s Meadow in 
December, 1899 (H. Mackay, t.c., 1904, p. 378). 

LITTLE BUSTARD Otis tetrax L. 8S. page 525. 

Yorxks.—One was shot at Kilnsea on December 7th, 
1902 (P. W. Loten, Nat., 1903, p. 61). 

NorFroutK.—One was shot at Feltwell on Jan. 25th, 
1898 (J. H. Gurney, Zool., 1899, p. 118). An ague 
female was shot at Ludham on Nov. 26th, 1900 (7d., t.c., 
1900, p. 138). A male was shot at Caister-by-the-Sea 
on Dec. 11th, 1902 (7d., ¢.c., 1903, p. 137). 

SuUFFOLK.—A male in full summer plumage was shot 
on May 3rd, 1898, at Kessingland, near Lowestoft. 
This is the first instance of a bird in this plumage having 
occurred in the Eastern counties (T. Southwell, é.c., 
1899, p..- 31; and. 1900, 99° 115): 

STAFFORD.—One was shot by a keeper at Warslow about 
1899, but was not recorded at the time as it was killed during 
the close season (F. C. R. Jourdain, in litt.) 

Drrspy.—A female was shot on Middleton Top, near 
Youlgreave, on May 14th, 1901 (W. Storrs Fox, Zool., 
1901, p. 270). 

KErnt.—One was shot in Thanet on Dec. 20th, 1902 
(C. Ingram, ¢.c., 4908, p.. 272). 

SussEx.—One was shot at Ashburnham on Dec. 23rd, 
1900 (G. W. Bradshaw, t.c., 1900, p. 428)—[the date 
should be Dec. 28th.—N.F.T.]. A female was shot 
near Burpham on Dec. 16th, 1901 (W. Percival Westell, 
t.c., 1902, p. 70). A female was killed against telegraph 
wires at Hollington in February, 1902 (N.F.T.). A 
female was shot at Westfield on Dec. 26th, 1905 (N.F.T.). 

SoMERSET.—The Rev. W. Fox reported that a female, 
previously unrecorded, was shot on Sedgemoor about 1872, and 
was now in the possession of a small farmer (Fveld,13, vit., 07.) 

JERSEY.—A female was shot on Feb. 4th, 1902 (H. 
Mackay, t.c., 1904, p. 378). 

STONE-CURLEW (Cdicnemus scolopax .(S. G. Gm.). 
S. page 529. | 
Kent.—Owing to protection, the numbers annually 
breeding in the county show a slight increase (N.F.T.). 
SuRREY.—There is at least one locality in which it 
may be regularly seen (1898) (J. A. Bucknill, Birds of 
Surrey, pp. 281-282). 


MERIONETH.—One was obtained near Towyn on 
Jan. 6th, 1903 (H. E. Forrest, Vert. F. N. Wales, p. 323). 

IRELAND.—One was reported to have been shot at 
Magheragollen, Gweedore, co. Donegal, on Oct. 12th, 
1903 (D. C. Campbell, Irish Nat., 1904, p. 119). 

[It formerly bred in Oxfordshire (Zool., 1903, p. 18; 1899, 
p-. 487), Buckinghamshire (¢.c., 1903, p. 450), Cambridgeshire 
(t.c., 1862, p. 8168), Bedfordshire (Vict. Hist. Beds., p. 128), 
Nottinghamshire (B. of Notts., p. 253)]. 

PRATINCOLE Glareola pratincola (lL.). 8S. page 531. 

Kent.—A male was shot by Mr. Southerden at 
Jury Gap, Romney Marsh, on May 30th, 1903. The 
specimen, which was the first recorded example from Kent, 
is in Mr. Fleetwood Ashburnham’s collection (N. F. 
Micehurst, Bull. B.O.C., XIU., p. 77). An adult pair 
were shot near the same place on July 19th, 1904 (N.F.T.). 

ScoTLaAnpD.—A young bird, only the second example 
of the species which has ever been obtained in Scotland, 
was shot on the Mill Burn, Rocksands, Montrose, by 
Mr. Stormond, on Nov. 4th, 1899 (J. A. Harvie-Brown, 
man. SN .H,, 1900, p: 51). 

CREAM-COLOURED COURSER Cursorius gallicus (J. F. 
Gm.). 8S. page 533. 

One was shot in Bouley Bay, Jersey, on Oct. 19th, 1896 
(J. E. Harting, Zool., 1896, p. 435). The Channel Islands 
are not included by Howard Saunders amongst the places 
where this bird has occurred. 

DOTTEREL Ludromias morinellus (L.). 8S. page 535. 

Nortu Waes.—Four were seen on the top of one of the 
highest mountains in Merionethshire on May 10th, 1901, and 
on May 8th, 1902. A search was made in June, 1901, but 
none were seen (O. V. Aplin, /bzs, 1901, p. 517, and 1903, 
p. 133). It appears to occur sparingly on the mountains in 
spring (H. E. Forrest, Vert. F. N. Wales, p. 330). 

JRELAND.—One was shot from a flock of more than a 
hundred birds (thought to be of the same species) in Donegal 
Bay on Nov. 29th, 1905 (A. R. Nichols, Irish Nat., 1906, 
p. 45). Three females were shot at Athlone on Nov. 10th, 
1906 (W. P. Williams, t.c., 1907, p. 183). 

OvutEeR Hesripes.—A bird-of-the-year was received from 
Eilean Mor, Flannan Isles, in September, 1906. The species 
had not been recorded previously from the Outer Hebrides 
(W. E. Clarke, Ann. S.N.H., 1907, p. 53). 


ScotLAND.—Mr. Harvie-Brown notes an extension south, 
if not an actual increase in numbers and breeding area, in 
the Tay district, which began about 1900, suddenly, and was 
afterwards continued rapidly, especially about 1902-3 (ef. 
Fauna of Tay Basin, pp. 299-304). 

RINGED PLOVER Agialitis hiaticola (L.). 8S. page 539. 

Inland Nesting.—In Worcestershire (D. R. Grubb, Zool., 
1902, p. 316) ; in Middlesex (R. B. Lodge, é.c., 1901, p. 389). 

KENTISH PLOVER Agialitis cantiana (Lath.). 8S. page 

DurHam.—An adult female was found dead near the 
North Gare breakwater (Teesmouth) at the end of May, 1904 
(C. E. Milburn, Nat., 1904, p. 283). 

Norts.—One was seen on April 13th, 1904, near Mansfield 
(J. Whitaker, Birds of Notts., p. 255). 

Kernt.—Owing to the rigid protection now in force in their 

breeding area, their numbers are steadily on the increase 

KILLDEER PLOVER Agialitis vocifera (L.). 8S. page 545. 

A specimen shot at Peterhead by Mr. Andrew Murray, Jun.., 
in 1867, was labelled ‘‘ Charadrius hiaticula,’ and was dis- 
covered in the University Museum at Aberdeen and identified 
as an example of this species by Mr. W. P. Pycraft in July, 
1904. This, therefore, is the first British-killed specimen 
(W. P. Pycraft, Ann. S.N.H., 1904, p. 247). 

LESSER GOLDEN PLOVER Charadrius dominicus P. L. 8. 
Miller. S. page 549. 

SurrEy.—A specimen in the Charterhouse collection 
was shot on Epsom Racecourse on Noy. 12th, 1870 (J. A. 
Bucknill, Birds of Surrey, p. 283). 

EssEx.—One (which was afterwards identified at the British 
Museum) was shot by Mr. H. Nunn off Shell Haven Point, 
on the Thames, Aug. 6th, 1896 (H. Nunn, Zool., 1897, p. 330). 

SOCIABLE PLOVER Vanellus gregarius (Pall.). 8S. page 

IRELAND.—A female was shot on Aug. Ist, 1899, in a turnip 
field, by a farmer at Robinstown, near Navan, co. Meath 
(E. Williams, Irish Nat., 1899, p. 233). 
| [It will be remembered that one was recorded from Kent 

in 1907, vide antea, Vol. 1., p. 57.] 

(Lio be continued.) 

( 151 ) 



VW OE “NUL NS, M.A., LL.M., ieB.O.U- 


(Continued from page 118.) 

Rusticola minor, the Snipe, or Snite, I. 62. tab. 27. Scolopax, 
Gallinago minor Ald. tom. 3. 479. Gallinago sive Rusticola 
minor, G. 448. est altera Hujus species nuncupata, the Jack 

[‘‘ Snite ” is the old form of Snipe. Gesner (p. 483) gives 
“snyt”? as an English name for the Sandpiper. “Jack 
Snipe,” cf. Willughby (p. 25).] 

Rusticola major, Scolopax. Gallinago, I. 88. tab. 31. the 
Wood-cock, Ald. tom. 3. 473. Rusticola vel Perdix Rustica 
major, G. 445. Utreq ; Hyeme huc migrant. ex Hibernia. 

[Neither Turner nor Willughby mention the Woodcock 
as frequenting Ireland. Merrett’s statement that it migrates 
hither from that country is derived from Giraldus Cambrensis’ 
account (Chapter X.), ““ There are immense flights of Snipe 
(acete) . . . both the larger species of the woods and the 
smaller of the marshes.’’] 

Ralla-Anglor, the Rail, or King of the Quails, Ald. 3. 455. 

[Cf. Willughby (p. 23). Turner (p. 71) states, curiously 
enough, that he had not seen or heard the Corn Crake 
‘anywhere in England, save in Northumberland alone.” ] 

Upupa, the Hoopee, I. 62. tab. 27. Ald. 2. 704. G. 703. In 
the New Forest in Hampshire, & in Essexia, sed raro invenitur. 

[The Hoopoe is still found. occasionally in the New Forest. 
Merrett describes it as rare, cf. Charleton (p. 92), who calls 
it a Hoopoop, and states that it rarely visits this country, 
and that a friend of his killed one near London ‘‘ Hyeme 
tamen Superiori.”” This bird, however, was not rare in 


Norfolk. Sir Thomas Browne, in his notes says: “ Upupa, 
or Hoopebird, so named from its note, a gallant marked 
bird wch I have often seen and ’tis not hard to shoote them ” 
(cf. Southwell, p. 23).] 

Pulveratrices domestice. 

[p. 174] Gallus, a Cock, I. 82. tab. 29. Ald. tom. 2. 200. 

. . . Hirsutis pedibus, ib. 
. . . Palustris, a Moor-hen, G. 421, Morenna Angl. Ald. 
2. 341. 

[The Black Grouse. Turner (p. 87) calls it the Morhen 
(cf. Willughby, p. 173). Aldrovandus (Lib. XIV., Cap. XV.) 
treats ‘‘De Gallo Scotico Sylvestris & de Morhenna 
Anglorum,” and informs us that “‘ Scoti in hoc genere marem 
vocant Ane black cock, id est, Gallum nigram: foeminam 

. ane grey hen, id est Gallinam fuscam.’’] 

Gallina Rustica Turn. quam variis de causis Attagenem 
esse conjicit. 

[C/. Turner (p. 87). ] 
Pulveratrices Lavatrices. 

Fulica, a Coot, I. 88. tab. 31. Ald. 395. G. 344. 
Ispida, the Kings-fisher, I. 88. tab. 31. Ald. 5. 520. G. 513. 
Gallina Aq. I. 88. tab. 31. 

[The figure in Jonstonus is that of the Water-Hen.] 

Gallina serica, I. 88. tab. 31. sic dicta a splendore, Ald. 
os. 410) 

[The figure in Jonstonus is possibly that of the Godwit.] 

Columba vulg. Livia, the common House-Pidgeon, or Culver, 
I. 88. tab. 32. Ald. 2. 462. G. 245. 

Columba Guttorosa perperam dicta Cropper, Ald. 2. 479. 

Columbe Cypriz, Jacobins, I. 88. tab. 32. Ald. 2. 471. 

Columbe Turcice, Coloris sunt Betulini, cum oculis rubris, 
Ald. 481. 

Columb. Tabellariz, Carriers. 

Columb. Tremule, Shakers, suntq; vel acuti vel lati 

Columb. Hirsutis pedibus, rough-footed Pidgeons, I. 88. 
tab. 32. Ald. 2. 466. 

Columb. Angl. & Russica, G. 245. inter has majores vocantur, 

Columb. Galeatze, Helmets. 

[P. 175.] Columb. maculis nigris & aliw rubris decorate, 
Black and red Spots. 

Columb. Percussores, Smiters. 


Columb. Gyratrices, Tumblers, Omnes he Columbe in 
Columbariis aluntur preterq; has a curiosis educantur 
Turcice, Barbarice, the Finikin, Cornew, Bastard bill, Light 
Horsman, Dragoon. 

Turtur, the Turtle Dove, I. 88. tab. 32. Ald. 2. 509. G. 277. 

Palumbus major torquatus, a Ring Dove, or Quist, Ald. 2. 
4.7. In sylvis, Turn. a Cowshot, a ringed Dove. 

Oenas seu vinago, a Stock-Dove, or Wood-Pidgeon, Ald. 2. 
499. I. 88. tab. 32. 

Passer domesticus, the House-Sparrow, I. 92. tab. 34. G. 581. 
Ald. 2. 534. idem quandoq; albus invenitur, I. ibid. Ald. 

Passer pusillus in Juglandibus degens, I. 96. sine Icone, 
Aid. 2.563. 

[A variety of Sparrow, cf. Belon (pp. 363 and 364), who terms 
this bird “‘Moineau de Noyer,” or “ Friquet.” Charleton 
(p. 78) calls it the “* Wall-nut Sparrow.’’] 

Junco, the Reed Sparrow, I. 166. tab. 53. Hujus datur 
minor species in Arundinetis prope Kingstoniam. 

[The Reed-Bunting, cf. Turner (p. 103).] 
Granivare Canore. 
Carduelis, a Gold-finch, I. 69. tab. 36. Ald. 2. 801. G. 215. 

Aurivittis Turn. 
Calandra Ald. 2. 847. est Alaudz persimilis sed ipsa paulo 
major, Ramis arborum insidet an Passer torquatus G. a Bunting. 

[Cf. Willughby (p. 208), and Belon (p. 271). Aldrovandus 
says it is called the “ Challander”’ in England. Emberiza 
Callandra is the name applied to the Corn Bunting by 
Linneus, cf. Syst. Nat., Ed. X., 1758.] 

Coccothraustes, I. 98. tab. 37. Coccothraustes mas Ald. 
2. 846. 

[The Hawfinch. Though Merrett does not give the English 
name the figure in Aldrovandus is unmistakable (cf. Belon, 
p. 374).] 

Fringilla, the Common, or Chaffinch, I. ib. Ald [Page 176.] 
2. 817. G. 342. Turn. a Sheld apl. a Spink. 

Monti-fringilla, the Bramble, or Brambling, I. 96. tab. 33. 
Ald. 2. 822. G. 3438. 

fe, 176: | 

[The derivation of the word Brambling is obscure. 
Charleton’s attempt is: “The Brambling, or Brier-finch 
(utpote rubris scepe insidens, eorumg’ fructibus victitans)”’; 
“rubris ’? = on brambles.] 


Chloris, the Green-finch, I. ib. Ald. 2. 851. G. 226. Turn. 
Acanthis, Spinus, Ligurinus. 

Citrinella, the Yellow-hammer, I. 96. tab. 36. Ald. 2. 859. 
Emberiza flava Turn. a Youlring, G. 591. 

[Cf. Swainson (p. 69).] 

Linaria, the Linet, I. 96. tab. 36. and 98. tab. 37. Ald. 2. 
824. G. 550. 

Luteola, a Siskin, rara apud Anglos avis nec uspiam fere 
alibi quam in caveis cernitur semel in agris Cantabrigianis 
se vidisse recordatur, Turn. 

[Merrett’s account of this bird is taken verbatim from Turner 
(p. 109), “‘ Caveis”” being Turner’s word for cages.] . 

Alauda, the Lark, I. 98. tab. 37. 38. Ald. 2. 845. G. 67. Turn. 

Alauda pratensis, the tit-Lark, I. ib. Ald. 2. 849. 

Alauda cristata, the wood- Lark, Gl 72. Ald. 2. 841. I. 98. 
tab. 37. 

Rubicilla, a Bull finch, a Hoop, and Bul Spink, a Nope, 
I. 120. tab. 43. Pyrrhula sive Rubicilla Ald. 2. 745. G. 662. 


Turdus vulg. the Song-Thrush, I. 98. tab. 37. Ald. 2. 600. 
& Turn. a Thrussel. 

Turdus Viscovorus, the Misletoe Thrush, or Saith, I. 102. 
tab. 39. Ald. 2. 583. G. 688. & Turn. simpliciter, a Thrush. 

[Willughby (p. 187) calls it the Missel-bird, or Shrite ; and 
Charleton (p. 83) the Shreitch.] 

Turdus Illas, the Wind Thrush, I. 102. tab. 39. Turdus 
minor Ald. 2. 598. Turdus minor [las vel '_Tylas, G. 689. 
Turn. a Wind Thrush. 

[The Redwing. Turner does not call it a Wind Thrush, as 
Merrett states, but a Wyngthrush (p. 173). The name Wind 
Thrush is applied to the Redwing to this day in Somersetshire 
(cf. Swainson, p. 5). ] 

Trichas, the Feldefare, Turdus pilaris Ald. 596. [Page 177.] 
tantum hyeme apud nos reperitur. 

[The Fieldfare, cf. Willughby (p. 24).] 

- Merula, Collyrion Turn. the Black-bird, or black Ousle, I. 
104. 140. Ald. 2. 604. G. 543. 

Sturnus vulg the Stare, or Starling, I. 104. t. 40. Ald. 2. 632. 
G. 677. cirea turres & altiora edificiorum culmina. 

Sturnus Cinereus, Ald. 2. 638. I. 104. t. 40. 

[Probably the immature Starling.] 

Ceruleo, a Clot Bird, a Smatch, or Arling, a Stone-check, 


nidulatur in Cuniculorum foveis, & sub lapide in Anglia 

The Wheatear—also on p. 178 as Ginanthe. C/. Turner 
(p. 53), Clot (bird) =Clod. Clod bird for clodhopper (cf. 
Swainson, p. 10). The account of the Wheatear’s nesting in 
rabbit burrows is derived from Turner (p. 53).] 


Picus viridis, the Green Wood pecker, or Hickwall, I. 110. 
t. 41. Ald. 1. 849. G. 642. Chlorion, Virio, a Witwoll, Turn. 

Picus varius major, I. 110. t. 41. Ald. 846. 

Picus varius minor & mas, I. ib. Ald. 1. 847. 

Picus murarius, the Creeper, or Wall-Creeper, I. ib. Ald. 
1. 852. G. 644. 

{Merrett distinguishes this bird from the Tree-Creeper, 
which he refers to as “Certhia, the Ox-eye Creeper.” 
Willughby (p. 143) says: “ They say it is found in England ; 
but we have not as yet had the hap to meet with it.”’ Turner 
does not mention the Wall-Creeper, but there is no reason 
why Merrett should not be correct in including it in his list 
of British birds (cf. Saunders’ Manual of British Birds, p. 119, 
and Gilbert White’s VIIIth letter to Marsham, in Harting’s 
second edition of the Natural History of Selborne). Charleton 
(p. 86) calls this bird the ‘‘ Creeper, or Spider Catcher,” which 
latter name Willughby also adopts.] 

Picus Cinereus, I. 110. t. 41. Sitta seu Picus Cinereus Ald. 
1. 853. 

[The Nuthatch, cf. Willughby (p. 143). ‘‘ Gaza* retains the 
same name, calling it ‘in Latina, Sitta. Later writers 
style it Picus cinereus, v.e., the ash-coloured Woodpecker.” 
Charleton calls it the “ Nut-breaker,” or “ Nut-jobber.”’]. 

Juynx, seu Torquilla, the Wryneck, I. 114. t. 42. Ald. 1. 
866. G. 515. 

[Charleton calls this bird the “* Wrynecken,” or “ Emmet- 

Certhia, the Ox-eye Creeper, I. 114. t. 42. Ald. 2. 870. Certhia 
Turn. G. 223. 

[For explanation of name Creeper cf. Turner (p. 53).] 

Passer Troglodytes, a Wren, I. ib. Ald. 2. 651. G. 588. 
Trochilus, Senator, Regulus Turn. 

Curruca, the Hedge Sparrow, G. 326. Ald. 2. 753. Hypolais 
seu -Curruca, [.'122. t. 45. 

* Theodorus Gaza, ob. 1480. The translator of Aristotle’s ‘‘ History 
of Animals’’ into Latin from the original Greek. 


Hirundo, the House Swallow, I. 114. t. 42. [Page 178.] Ald. 
2. 662. G. 492. vivit per Hyemem in mineris stanneis Cor- 
nubiensibus & in Rupibus marinis. 

[‘‘ It lives during the winter in the tin mines of Cornwall,” 
cf. Carew (Fol. 25).] 

Hirundo Riparia, the Sand Martin, or Shore-bird, I. ib. 
Ald. 2. 695. a bank Martnet, G. 508. 

Hirundo agrestis sive Rustica Plinii, a Martin, Ald. 2. 693. 
I. 114. t. 42. 

Hirundo apus, a black Martin, or Martlet, Ald. 2. 699. I. 
114. t. 42. a Rock or Church Martnet, G. 507. 

[The Swift, cf. Willughby (p. 214.)] 

Parus major, the Common Titmouse, I. 120. t. 43. Ald. 2. 
713. G. 578. the great Titmouse, vel the great Ox-eye Turn. 

[Cf. Turner (p. 131), and Swainson (p. 32).] 

Parus Ceruleus minor, I. 122. t. 44. Ald. 721. G. 579. the 
less Titmouse, Turn. 

Parus ater, seu Carbonarius, the Coalmouse, I. ib. Ald. 2. 
Was. Do: 

[Cf. Willughby (p. 241) “ Cole-mouse.’’] 

Parus Caudatus, the least, or long taild Titmouse, I. ib. 
Ald. 2. 716. G. 580. 

Motacilla, a Water Wagtail, I. 122. t. 44. Ald. 2. 727. G. 557. 
Culicilega, a Wag tail, Turn. 

Motacilla flava rostro longiusculo nigricante, I. 122. t. 44. 
Ald. 2. 859. G. 559. 

[Presumably the Yellow Wagtail (M. rai). The epithet 
Longiusculus—somewhat lengthy, as applied to the beak is, 
however, more descriptive of the Grey Wagtail (MM. 

Rubetra, the Stone-Chatter, or Blackberry-eater, & Turn. 
mortetter, I. 122. t. 45. Ald. 2. 740. a Moortiting Aquilonari- 

[Cf. Turner (p. 159). Charleton also calls the Stone-Chat, 
the ‘‘ Blackberry-eater, Morteller, or Black-cap.” For this, 
and Moor-titing, or Moor-titling, cf. Swainson (p. 12).] 

Rubecula, the Ruddock, Red-breast, and Robin Red-breast, 
I. ib. Ald. 2. 742. G. 661. 

Ruticilla, Pheenicurus, the Red-start, I. 120. 43. Ald. 2. '747. 
a Redtail, G. 663. ex Turn. 

[Gesner has “ Angli a redetale” (p. 699). According to 
Charleton (p. 91), this bird possibly hibernated in England.] 


Oenanthe, the Wheat ear, or White tail, I. 122. [Page 179.] 
t. 45. Ald. 2. 763. G. 567. in agro Warwicensi Fallow Smiters. 

[The Wheatear as Ceruleo (p. 177). Fallow Smiters— 
Swainson (p. 9) has Fallow Smich; and in Wiltshire it is 
known as the Horse Smatch, or Snatcher (A. C. Smith, Birds 
of Wilts). Smiter possibly from Smit, SW. Smet, grease or 

Luscinia, Lusciniola, the Nightingale, I. ib. Ald. 2. 777. G. 

Morinellus, the Dotterel, Ald. 3. 540. G. 554. in agro Lincoln- 
iensi certo anni tempore capitur jocose, vide Camden. 

[The account of the taking of this bird given by Camden 
(who apparently derived it from Caius, cf. Evans’ Turner, 
p- 203), is as follows :— 

‘** Dotterells, so named from their dotish foolishnesse, which 
being a kind of birds as it were of an apish kind, ready to 
imitate what they see done, are caught by candle light accord- 
ing to foulers gesture: if he puts forth an arme, they also 
stretch out a wing: sets he forward his legge, or holdeth up 
his head, they likewise doe their: in briefe, whatever the 
fouler doth, the same also doth this foolish bird, untill it be 
hidden within the net ’” (Camden, Philemon Holland’s edition, 
1610 (p. 548); cf. also Willughby (pp. 309, 310).] 

Aquatice Palmipides. 

Cygnus, the Swan, I. 136. t. 48. Ald. 3. 8. G. 321. 

Anser Domesticus, the Goose, mas vocatur, the Gander, 
I. 136, t. 48. Ald. 3. 102. G. 125. 

Chenalopex, vulpanser, a Bergander, nusquam alias vidi 
nisi in Thamesi fluvio aiunt tamen esse frequentem in insula 
Tenia (Thanet.) vocaté & illic in scrobibus cuniculorum 
nidulari, Turn. 

[The Shelldrake. Turner (p. 25) says “ our people nowadays 
name it Bergander”’ (7.e., Burrow-gander). Caius, however, 
suggests quite another derivation for Berg, which he thinks 
may be from Brend, or Bernd, meaning variegated (cf. Evans’ 
Turner, p. 195). Ray, apparently using the same idea, calls 
the Goosander, a Bergander (p. 94).] 

Anser ferus, I. 136. t. 48. Ald. 3. 150. G. 140. 

Be rericalca, Capricalze Scotis, Ald. 3. 164. I. 136. t. 48. 

. 146. 

[The Capercailzie, also Urogallus (p. 173).] 

Anseris speciem vidi in Cimelio Tradescanti sub nomine 
Squeed una cum Ovo ex Insula Scotica Bass dicta, in qua 


quam plurima avium genera stato anni tempore nidificant uti 
etiam in insula Vecti. 

[‘‘In Cimelio Tradescanti,” 7.e., the Tradescant Museum, 
which was the origin and basis of the Ashmolean Museum at 
Oxford. .‘‘Squeed”’ (?) not the Gannet which is mentioned 
by Merrett on the same page. Possibly the Hider Duck is 
meant, a few still breed on the-Bass.] 

Bernicla Brenta, the Brant Goose, I. 136. t. 48 Ald. 3. 167. . 
Brenthus, G. 95. 

Gustarda Avis Scotica Ald. 3. 163. G. 145. 

[The Great Bustard ; also p. 173. The name Gustard was 
applied to the Great Bustard by Hector Boethius, or Boece 
(1465-1536), the author of “‘ Scotorum Historie,” cf. Willughby 
(p. 178), and Gray’s “‘ Birds of the West of Scotland ” (p. 248) : 
‘* Besides these, we have another foule in Mers, more strange 
and uncouth than all these aforementioned, called a Gustard, 
fullie so great as a swan, but in colour of feathers and tast of 
flesh little differing from a Partridge.’’] 

Anser Bassanus, sive Scoticus, a Soland Goose, G. 145. ex 
insula Bass non procul Edinburgo. | 

[Cf. Evans’ Turner (p. 197). Soland Goose=the Gannet, 
cf. Willughby (328).] 

Anas Domesticus, the Duck, mas, the Drake, I. 142. t. 49. 
Ald. 3. 188. Anas cicur, G. 83. 

[Page 180.] Harle, the black Diver, I. 148. t. 49. a Shell 
Drake in Norfolcia. 

[For “ Harle,”’ as applied to the Red-breasted Merganser, 
cf. Swainson (p. 164): “Shell Drake in Norfolk.” Swainson 
(p. 163) gives Shell Duck as a name of the Goosander. The 
figure in Jonstonus is possibly meant for the Merganser. ] 

Anas fera, I. ib. Ald. 3. 222. G. 101. the Wild Duck. 

Anas fera fusca, I. 142. t. 49. Ald. 3. 221. in Paludibus 

[The figure in Jonstonus is possibly meant for the Scoter. 
Merrett may here have meant the Pochard. Ray gives the 
English equivalent as “ Pochard” (p. 96), and Charleton, 
“the Red-headed Widgeon ”’ (p. 99).] 

Anas Platyrhincus Ald. 231. in paludibus Crowlandiensibus, 
I. 142. t. 49. 

[The Shoveller. The figure in Aldrovandus is distinct.] 

Querquedula, the Teal, I. 142. t. 49. Ald. 3. 549. G. 91. 

A Gaddel, Ornithopolis nostris sic dictus est magnitudine 
Anatis, rostrum simillimum rostro Querquedule, sed ali- 
quanto magis cerulescit. 


[The Gadwall, cf. Willughby (p. 374), where the name 
Gadwall is seemingly used for the first time. The derivation 
of Gadwall is obscure, cf. Newton “ Dict. Birds” (p. 297).] 

Penelope major, the Widgeon, Ald. 3. 219. I. 142. t. 49. 

Penelope fem, Ald. 3. 220. 

Colymbus major, the great Ducker, I. 136. t. 48. Ald. 3. 252. 

[The Great Northern Diver, cf. Willughby (p. 342), and 
Swainson (p. 213).] 

Colymbus a Norwegis Lumme, a nostratibus, Razor bill, 
Worm, 304. ex Auctario Clus. pag. 367. Mr. Willoughby. 

[Cf. “Museum Wormianum” (p. 304), and Willughby 
(p. 342). The word “ Loom,” or “ Loon,” is applied to the 
Divers in general (cf. Swainson, p. 213).] 

Colymbus Cristatus seu Auritus, Worm, ib. sine Icone, 

[Possibly the Great Crested Grebe.] 

Colymbus medius, the Dive-dapper, or Arsfoot, I. 136, t. 
45. Ald. 3. 258. 

[Arsfoot, a name given to the Grebes on account of the 
position of their legs (cf. Swainson, pp. 215, 216). So also 
the Razorbill and Guillemot are known in Yorkshire as “ feet 
in Ass.”’] | 

Colymbus minimus, the Dab Chick. 

[The Little Grebe (cf. Willughby, p. 340, and Swainson, 
p. 216).] 

Mergorum serrati-Rostratorum species major & minor, 
in fluvio Tame in agro Warwicensi an. 1664. cum rigidissima 
fuerit hyems, Mr. Willoughby. 

[Probably the Goosander and Merganser, or the male and 
female of one of these species (cf. Willughby, p. 27, and 
Charleton, p. 95).] 

Mergus Turn. (ut sentio) qui vidit in rupibus marinis nidifi- 
cantes, juxta Ostium Tine fluvii [Page 181.] in Norfolcia, 
Hoc me ditavit Doctissimus affinis meus Ds. Jenner Sclopeto 
transfosso in agro Wiltoniensi. 

[Turner’s Mergus is the Cormorant (cf. pp. 111, 113).] 

Corvus aquat. the Cormorant, Ald. 3. 263. I. t. 27. Carbo 
aquat. G. 121. in Cornubia Shags, Turn. mergus. 

[The same as the above.] 

Onocrotalus, sive Pelicanus, the Pelicane, I. 128. t. 46. 
Ald. 3. 47. 

[Pelicans were (1660-1670) kept in captivity in the Royal 


Aviary in St. James’s Park (cf. Willughby, p. 327, and 
Charleton, p. 94). Sir Thomas Browne, writing to Merrett 
under date September 13th, 1668, says :—‘‘ In your Pinax 
I find Onocratalus, or Pellican, whether you meane those at 
St. James or others brought over or such as have been taken 
or killed heere I knowe not. I have one hangd up in my 
howse wch was shott in a fenn ten miles of about 4 yeares 
ago and because it was so rare some conjectured it might 
bee one of those which belonged unto the King & flewe away ” 
(cf. Southwell, pp. 64 and 16).] 

Pelicanus sive Platza, a Shovelard, I. 128. t. 46. ex agro 
Lincoln. Turn. a Spoon bill. 

[The Spoonbill, cf. Turner (pp. 151 and 41), and Willughby 
(p. 288).] 

Larus major & minor albus, the Sea Mew, I. 126. t. 46. 
Ald. 3. 65. & simpliciter, Gul, Sea Gul, or Sea Cob. 

[For “Sea Mew,” as applied to the Common Gull (L. 
canus), cf. Swainson (p. 207). For “Sea Cob,” cf. Turner 
(p. 79).] 

Larus, quem Cornubienses indigitant, a Ganet, forsan 
detorto nomine a Gavia vel a Gallicorum Gavian quod idem 
sonat, est par Anseri, palmipes, rostrum rotundum ceruleum, 
corpus grisei coloris, alte volat alausasq; minores solas 

[No doubt one of the Skuas, probably the Great Skua (cf. 
Willughby, p. 348). Merrett states that it catches “ alausas,” 
by which he means pilchards, cf. p. 185, where the word is 
spelt “ alosa.’’] 

Puphinus Anglicus, the Puphin, G. 657. ex Insula Anglesey, & 
Cornubia, Anas Artica Clusii, & Fraterculus Ald. 3. 230. 
lin. 13, 14. 

[C?. Turner, p. 205, and Carew, Fol. 35.] 

Fissipides Aquatice. 

Ciconia, the Stork, I. 148. t. 50. Ald. 3. 311. G. 230. raro hue | 

(Cf. Willughby (p. 286) for an account of the specimen 
‘taken on the coast of Norfolk”? which he received from Sir 
Thomas Browne. Writing to Merrett September 13th, 1668, 
Browne states that he had seen two, “ one in a watery marsh 
8 miles of, another shott whose case is yet to bee seen.’’] 

Ardea Cineria, the Ash coloured Heron, or Hern, Hernshaw, 
I. 148. t. 50. Ald. 3. 378. Ardea pulla sive Cinerea, G. 187. 

[Cf. Swainson, p. 144.] 


mraea alba, G. I. 152. t. 51. Ald. 390. G..189; a Mire 

[This may either mean a white (albino) Heron, or the 
Spoonbill, which Merrett has already mentioned. (Cf. 
Turner, p. 39.) Merrett gives it the name “ Mire Drumble,” 
which was in the form of Mire Drum, or Mire Drumble, com- 
monly applied to the Bittern (cf. Willughby, p. 25, and 
Century Dict., Vol. V.). Charleton, apparently following 
Merrett, calls the Spoonbill a “ Mire-drumbel.”’] 

Ardea stellaris, the Bittourn, I. ib. Ald. 405. G. 100. 

[ Bittern, cf. Turner (p. 41), and Willughby (p. 25), where 
we are told that its common name was “ Night-Raven.” (Cf. 
Swainson, p. 146.)] 

[p. 182] Ardea minor, I. tab. 56. quam ad me transmisit Ds. 
Jenner, ex agro Wiltoniensi. 

[Possibly the Little Bittern.] 

Avis pugnax, I. 154. t. 52. a Rough, est tertia in Tab. 

Avis pugnax, quarta in dicta Tab. a Reev. utreq; ex agro 
Lincoln. est feemina superioris. 

Hemantopus mas & fem. Red shanks, I. 154. t. 52. 

Arquata, seu numenius, the Curliew, Ald. 3. 426. I. 152. 
mol. G. 197. 

Arquata congener, a Stone Curliew, huic rostrum breve, 
accipitrinum, penne milvi, Phasiano par magnitudine, 
Dilicatissimze avis ex agro Hantoniensi, Ds. Hutchinson 
Ornithopola Londinensis. 

[The Stone-Curlew was found in Hampshire (cf. Gilbert 
White, XVth letter to Pennant), and still breeds in that 
county.) ] 

Vannellus, the Lapwing, bastard Plover, or Pewit, insula 
queedam ab iis nomen fortitur in Essexia : Huc enim migrant 
precise ad diem Divo Georgio sacrum, vide Fuller, 318. 
f. 166. t. 53. Ald. 3. 526. G. 692. 

[Cf. Turner (pp. 77 and 175). For accounts of this migra- 
tion of the Pewet Gull on St. George’s Day to the promontory 
of the Ness, or Naze, in Essex, cf. Charlton (p. 108), and Fuller, 
“ Worthies of England ” (Vol. 1, p. 494) :— 

“There is an island of some two hundred acres, near Har- 
wich, in the parish of Little Oakley, in the Manor of Matthew 
Gilby, esquire, called the Puet island, from Puets [Fuller was, 
of course, referring to the Black-headed, or Pewet Gull, Larus 
ridibundus| in effect the sole inhabitants thereof. Some 
affirm them called in Latin Upupe, whilst others maintain 


that the Roman language doth not reach the name, nor land 
afford the bird. On Saint George’s Day precisely, they pitch 
on the island, seldom laying fewer than four or more than 
Six eggs.” 

This mention of migration on St. George’s Day, April 23rd, 
coincides with the fact that this is the day on which cattle 
in Eastern Europe are shifted from winter to summer 

Vannello congener capella vulgari procerior, at Turdo minor, 
pennis Ceruleis & crista longa, ex Cornubia Ds. Gunthorp. 

[Smaller than a Thrush . . . with a long crest ? If minor 
be a misprint for major, this is the Green Plover or Lapwing.] 

Pluvialis cinerea, the Grey Plover, I. 166. t. 53. Ald. 3. 531. 
G. 647. 

Pluvialis flavescens hujus meminit, I. pag. 165. sine Icone. 

Pluvialis vulg. the Whistling Plover, or green Plover, in 
Ericeto Lincoln. 

[This is the Golden Plover (cf. Willughby, p. 308; cf. 
Southwell, p. 20).] 

Rallus Itallorum, I. p. 147. Ald. 3. 98. utribique sine icone. 

[One of the Rails.] 

[Page 183.] Trynga Ald. 3. 814. I. 166. t. 53. juxta stag. 
na Ichthyophylatica, & rivulorum margines, in agro War- 
wicensi, Mr. Willoughby. 

[The Sandpiper (cf. Willughby, p. 301).j 

Trynga paulo minor, Ald. 3. 482. I. 166. t. 53. idem. 

Merulam aquat. vidit volantem in Cumberlandia Ds. 
Willoughby, Ald. 3. 486. I. 166. t. 53. . 

[The Dipper, also on p. 171 as Cornix Aquaticus cf. Wil- 
lughby (p. 149).] 

Charadrios ab incolis, Sea Lark, in littoribus Cambrobritan- 
nicis, preesertim in statione Belli Mauritii, I. 166. t. 53. Char- 
adrios sive Hiatula, Ald. 3. 537. Ds. Willoughby. 

[‘‘ Sea Lark,” cf. Willughby, p. 310. Probably the Dunlin, 
or the Ringed Plover—possibly both (cf. Swainson, pp. 182 
and 193).] 

Grus, the Crane, I. 166. t. 45. Ald. 3. 329. G. 474. 

PCj Purner, p: 497.4 

Crex, a Daker Hen, est avis longis cruribus, cetera coturnici, 
(nisi quod major sit) similis, que in segete & Lino, vere, & 
in Principio estatis non aliam habet vocem quam crex, hane 
enim vocem semper ingeminat, quam ego Arist. Crecem esse 
puto, nusquam in Anglia nisi in sola Northumbria, vidi, & 


audivi, & an sit eadem cum Ortygometra superius memorata 
nescio, suspicor tamen esse Turn, me talem vidisse & audivisse 
ad Wheatley quing ; Oxonio Milliaribus memini. 

[Also on p. 73 as Ralla—a Daker Hen. The Landrail, or 
Corncrake (cf. Turner, p. 71, and Willughby, p. 316). For 
Daker Hen, cf. Swainson (p. 177). It is still called the 
‘“Daker Hen” in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire.] 

Tres sequentes: aves cum nominibus & breviusculis des- 
criptionibus mihi communicavit Ds. Hutchinson Ornithopola 
Lond. quas se vidisse ait in agro Lincoln. 

[‘‘ Ornithopola,” = a dealer in birds.] 

Non est avis aquatica querquedula paulo minor Rostrum 
ei rotundum, tenue & argastum, superius paululum incur- 
vatum, toto ventre albes- [Page 184.] cit, dorsum nigrum, 
caput cristatum unde forsan ei nomen, sc. a monacha velata. 

[“ Non est,” a misprint for “ Nun est,” as it appears in the 
1666 edition. Merrett here, no doubt, refers to the Smew 
(cf. Ray, Collection of English Words, p. 95). It is called the 
Nun to this day (cf. Yarrell, Vol. IV., p. 499; Swainson, 
p- 165).] 

Crickaleel, est priori eequalis, Czerulea in alarum supernis, 
caput collumq; maculata, ad ingluviem coloris grisei inde 
deorsum albescit vel contra quoad ventris colorem. 

[This may be the Garganey. “Crickaleel’’ may be onomato- 
peic. The Garganey is known as the “Cricket Teal,” cf. 
Swainson (p. 158), who states that from its cry it is known as 
Cric Cric (Jura), Criquet (Savoy), Kriechentlein (Germany). 
Sir T. Browne says :—‘‘ We have a kind of teale which some 
fowlers call Crackling Teale” (cf. Southwell, p. 83).] 

Gossander, palmipes & cristata ventre aureo, rostro longo 
& angusto, caro flavescit & cocta tota facessit in oleum, non 
est edulis, ex agro Lincoln. videtur esse Puphini species. 

[Sir Thomas Browne’s comment on this note is:—‘“‘Gossander 
videtur esse puphini species—worthy Sr that which we call 
a gossander & is no rare foule among us is a large well colourd 
& marked diving fowle most answering the Merganser. It 
may bee like the puffin in fattnesse and Ranknesse butt no 
foule is I think like the puffin differenced from all others by a 
peculiar kind of bill” (Letter to Merrett, December 29th, 
1668 ; Southwell, p. 72).] 


EARTHENWABRE bottles of the form shown in the accompanying 
photograph were in common use on the barns and other farm 
buildings in Kent and Sussex a century ago. They were put 
up in rows under the eaves, and their object was to facilitate 
the collection of the eggs and young of the House-Sparrows, 

which were then universally destroyed, rewards being given 
for them in every parish. Probably this custom was equally 
common in other counties. Nesting bottles of this form may 
be seen depicted on the ends of cottages in some of Morland’s 
pictures. Some forty years ago they were comparatively 
common in the part of Kent in which I live, but lately I had 
some difficulty in finding any that were entire. 

Only half of the back of the bottle was earthenware, half 

NOTES. 165 

being left open to admit the hand, while a small nick was 
made in the upper half for the nail on which the bottle hung. 
EK. G. B. MeapE-WaLpo. 


On August 23rd a pair of Black Redstarts (Ruticilla titys) 
were seen at Tal-y-llyn, near Towyn, by Mr. H. N. Kirkby, 
who watched them at close quarters for some time. The hen 
bird was seen there again on the 30th of the same month. 
The species is rare in North Wales, but has been recorded 
three times previously in the same neighbourhood—in each 
case a single bird (cf. Vert. Fauna N. Wales, p. 82). 

H. KE. Forrest. 


A FINE male Black-headed Wagtail was shot at Fairfield, 
Lydd, Kent, on June 8rd, 1908. It was taken by me to the 
Natural History Museum, and identified as Motacilla flava 

melanocephala. J. B. NicHozs. 


In your last issue you mention twenty-two occurrences of 
the Great Grey Shrike (Zanius excubitor) in Scotland during 
the year 1907. Yet another specimen, unrecorded in that 
list, was shot at Long Hope, in Orkney, in the November of 

that year. H. W. Rosrnson. 

[The Duchess of Bedford informs us that a female was shot 
early in April, 1908, in the valley of the Palnure, two miles 
from the place where one was seen in the previous autumn, 

as recorded in Vol. I., p. 263.—Eps.] 


Ir may be interesting to record that a fine pair of Two- 
Barred Crossbills (Loxia bifasciata) were shot together at 
Penhurst, near Ashburnham, Sussex, on March 10th, 1908. 
The cock is in fine red plumage, the hen in yellow. They 
were seen in the flesh by Mr. W. R. Butterfield after being 
sent to Mr. Bristow of St. Leonards. They are now in my 

collection. J. B. NICHOLS 


In the references by MS. Marginal Notes in a copy of 
MacGillivray’s “‘ British Birds,” the statement by Dr. C. 


Gordon is clear enough in itself. Dr. C. Gordon was a personal 
friend of MacGillivray. The repetition in my “Fauna of 
the N.W. Highlands and Skye,” as regards their almost com- 
plete disappearance for some years, is also correct, and was 
upon the authority of personal investigations, and also upon 
the authority of Mr. D. Guthrie, who, by the date of the 
notes in “ The Annals,” 1896, pp. 3-22, had been some seven- 
teen or eighteen years head-keeper to Sir Reginald Gordon 
Cathcart, in South Uist. I quoted in the first instance from 
the annotated copy of MacGillivray’s, which was lent to me, 
but the second time from memory of the passage. 

There appears to be little mystery—or none at all—in the 
sequence of the accounts of the Tufted Ducks in the Outer 
Hebrides. Dr. C. Gordon as early as 1851, when he dates his 
marginal notes in the fifth volume of MacGillivray’s “ British 
Birds,” spoke of the Tufted Duck as “‘ common and plentiful ” 
in South Uist during the winter (vide Annals S.N. Hist., 1896, 
pp. 3-22). 

Mr. D. Guthrie, however, a most careful and capable 
observer, reported this species as much scarcer in years 
subsequent to 1892; and he had been resident in South 
Uist at that time since about 1874. | 

In 1893 actual record of nesting took place in South Uist, and 
Mr. Guthrie verified some of his previous statements of its 
doing so, and sent me an egg taken from a nest by himself. 
Four pairs were known to breed in 1906, and one pair in 1907, 
by Bahr and Kinnear. Mr. Guthrie also had spoken of the 
Tufted Duck having been in unusual numbers in South Uist in 
the winter of 1902-3. 

J. A. Harviz-Brown. 


WiruH reference to Mr. Harvie-Brown’s note (antea, p. 134) 
on. the distribution of the Common Scoter in Scotland, it may 
be of interest to state that a large flock of Common Scoters 
was seen off the south end of the island of Graemsay, in 
Orkney, during the first week in March this year. 

With one exception, viz., a single adult male seen in com-_ 
pany with an old Goldeneye drake on the Loch of Harray, 
among a large and widely scattered flock of Pochard drakes, 
on the last day of February, 1905, this is the only time I, 
personally, have come across the Common Scoter in Orkney 
in winter. Whether they occur on and around the island of 
Tiree in the Inner Hebrides I cannot say, but I spent the 

NOTES. 167 

greater part of three consecutive winters on this particular 
island without seeing the species. However, they might 
easily have been there for all that, as, owing to the local 
lochmen being unwilling to go more than a quarter of a mile 
from land, and then only in very calm weather, I was rather 
handicapped as far as my observations of the sea Ducks were 

H. W. Rosinson. 


On or aboat the llth of June, 1908, two Sand-Grouse 
(Syrrhaptes paradoxus) were observed in a field of roots at 
Wythenshawe, Cheshire, by Mr. H. V. MacMaster. Their 
plumage and ‘ pigeon-like”’ heads at once attracted his 
attention, and he stood for some time at a distance of about 
thirty-five yards from them watching them feeding. When 
he approached a little nearer, one of the birds got up and 
called ‘‘chack, chack,’ and then both flew away with 
remarkably rapid and strong flight, which reminded him of 
the flight of the Golden Plover, a bird which is common on 
the Withenshawe fields in winter. Mr. MacMaster, though he 
was struck with the long wings and tails of the birds when 
they rose, is not prepared to say whether they were a 
male and female. 

T. A. Cowarp. 


THE mistake over this subject in the ‘Irish Naturalist ’”’ 
(1899, pp. 17 and 37) has unfortunately been adopted in 
British Brrps (antea, p. 127). As I pointed out in “ The 
Birds of Ireland ”’ (p. 231), [had the able assistance of Mr. HE. T. 
Newton and Dr. Forsyth Major, as well as of Dr. Scharff to 
determine the humerus from the Ballynamintra Cave, in co. 
Waterford, of which I was the finder. The conclusion arrived 
at was that this bone agrees far more closely with that of a 
common fowl, and as it was found in the superficial stratum, 
I have no doubt it was brought in by a fox in recent times. 
It can be seen in the Dublin Museum, where it is labelled 
Gallus. Among the numerous bones of birds found by me 
during the past eight years in the caves of Sligo, Clare and 
Cork, and which Mr. E. T. Newton has kindly determined 
for us, the Black Grouse is not represented, and I know of 
no evidence that it: was indigenous in Ireland. 

As regards the supposed bones of Ptarmigan, these also 


were compared by Dr. Forsyth Major and Dr. Scharff with 
bones of the several species of Grouse, and they were 
found to agree better in some respects with those of Red 
Grouse than with those of Ptarmigan. Some bones from 
Kish Cave, co. Sligo, have been referred by Mr. E. T. 
Newton to Red Grouse (?) or Ptarmigan (?). The former is 
common in Ireland while the latter is unknown. 



THE systematic methods adopted by Oyster-catchers in 
abstracting mussels from their shells are admirably detailed 
by Mr. J. M. Dewar in the “ Zoologist ’”? for June. 

It is somewhat surprising to find that no shells larger than 
13 inches by % inch were found opened, while shells less than 1 
inch by 4 inch were swallowed whole. 

The larger shells are dealt with in a most methodical manner. 
No attempt is made to attack them when their valves are 
closed : hence, those left high and dry by the tide, or in rain- 
water pools, are always passed over unmolested. The shell 
must be more or less gaping to arrest attention. As everyone 
knows who is familiar with mussel-scalps, these molluses 
assume varied positions, sometimes presenting the ventral, 
sometimes the dorsal border, uppermost, and sometimes one 
end of the shell. And of these positions, shells with the dorsal 
borders uppermost are most sought for, no less than 78 per 
cent. of the empty shells left by Oyster-catchers having 
occupied this position at the time of attack. 

Each mussel is approached in the line of its long axis, and 
generally, for some inexplicable reason, this approach is made 
“from the front.” Should the shell be slightly gaping a 
tentative tap is given, as if to ascertain whether the slit is 
large enough for the beak to enter. If the experiment is 
favourable, the beak is thrust home by a series of jerks, 
forcible and rapid. When the blow is delivered a little to 
one side, so as to force inwards a portion of one side of a 
valve, more deliberation is displayed, which suggests that the 
abstraction of the animal from its case is a matter of certainty, 
the body being dragged out through the hole made, in spite 
of the closing of the valves. 

The author describes, in great detail, a number of methods 
in the use of the beak as a lever, after it has once been thrust 
down between the valves. These we cannot repeat, but it 
should suffice to say that the simplest method employed is 

NOTES. 169 

to shake the beak violently from side to side till the valves 
are laid open by the fracture of the adductor muscles. 
Another method is to turn the beak through a quarter of a 
circle, either by walking round the victim, or turning the head 
in the neck. In yet another, the head is lowered almost to 
the ground, and the point of the bill is thrust between the 
valves ; the bird then moves its head to the left whereby the 
two valves are forced apart. 

Only about 9 per cent. of shells are opened through the 
ventral borders, which may be accounted for by the fact that 
this border is generally undermost. It is a noteworthy fact 
indeed that these buried shellfish are found at all; often they 
are discovered when buried by a layer of sand or mud as much 
as an inch in depth. In their search for this buried treasure, 
the bill is used as a sort of divining rod, the ground being 
tapped here and there, until a victim is found. 

Some 13 per cent. of shells are opened through their 
posterior ends. Many buried shells are opened in this fashion. 
Indeed, the author declares that this can be “ the only route 
to the interior of the buried shells, the long axes of which are 
vertical.” This statement, however, requires some qualifi- 
cation, since he also contends that ‘‘ more mussels are opened 
by way of the ventral borders when buried than when exposed 
to view.” 

Finally, Mr. Dewar contends that he has “‘ brought forward 
observations which seem to prove that the Oyster-catcher, 
far from being actuated by blind impulse, on the contrary 
proceeds deliberately to remove certain structures (the 
adductor muscles) which hinder the achievement of their 
desires.”” It may be questioned whether this is not placing to 
the credit of the Oyster-catcher a degree of intelligence which 
it does not possess. 


On April 21st, 1908, Mr. Bristow informed me that 
he had seen the previous day three strange Waders 
on one of the “ fleets ’’ in Romney Marsh, not far from 
Lydd. He was not sure of their identity, but was 
struck by their unusually long tails. The following 
day all doubt was set at rest by the receipt of one of 
them, which he at once brought to me in the flesh. It 
was an adult specimen of the Killdeer Plover (gialitis 
vocifera), and had been shot by a- shepherd at the place 
where the three were seen. The second was shot on 


April 21st, and the third on the 22nd, these I did not 
see until after they had been mounted. 

These are the first of this common American species 
that have been killed in Kent, and bring up the British- 

af ee Eine 
Ben TS ‘ 

Killdeer Plover, shot near Lydd, Kent, on April 21st, 1908. 

taken examples to six. One is now in the collection 
of Mr. J. B. Nichols, and a second in that of Mr. C. J. 

N. F. Tickwursr 

[We are much indebted to Mr. J. B. Nichols for the 
loan of his specimen, and for the permission to reproduce 
the accompanying photograph of it.—EDs.] . 


WirH reference to the Duchess of Bedford’s note in 
the last number of BririsH Brrps (p. 136), the Solitary 
Sandpiper was shot by a visitor at Littlestone, and 
therefore at no great distance from where she saw it on 
August 15th. Mr. Bristow received it two days later, 
and kindly brought it to me in the flesh. From its 
condition it had evidently passed unrecognised, and 
it looked as though it had been shaken up ina “‘ game” 

NOTES. 171 

bag with other birds: it was soddened with blood and 
melted fat, sand and sea-water, and so was a very sorry- 
looking object, but its tail-feathers and axillaries gave 
unmistakable proof of its identity. 

I may, perhaps, draw attention here to the great 
immigration of Waders that tock place on the Kent 
coast at the end of July, of which the Duchess of 
Bedford’s notes give evidence. Mr. M. J. Nicoll informs 
me of Ruffs and other species seen by him about the 
same time, and on the night of July 23rd, when at 
Folkestone, I heard large numbers of Waders, chiefly 
Sanderlings, passing over the town for two hours or 

N. FB. Tiensursr: 


On August 12th I visited, with a friend, one of the Surrey 
breeding haunts of the Great Crested Grebe, and we were 
fortunate in discovering a nest containing four eggs, which 
were only very slightly stained, and certainly had not been 
incubated more than a week. I think it is somewhat ex- 
ceptional to find eggs in the nest during August, as this species 
does not appear to be double-brooded. That the Little Grebe 
is so is well-known, but I think it worth recording that on 
July 27th we found a nest with a fresh egg (another was laid 
the next day) belonging to a pair of birds, which were accom- 
panied by chicks not more than a day or two old. 
MarxkiInG Brirps.—Dr. Otto Herman, Director of the 
Hungarian Central Bureau for Ornithology, informs us that 
he has begun marking young Storks, Herons, Gulls and 
Swallows, by means of an aluminium ring which is fastened 
around the leg of the bird and bears the inscription 
“ Budapest,” followed by a number which corresponds to the 
entry in aregister book. Should anyone capture a bird so 
marked he is requested to send the ring to the Hungarian 
Central Bureau for Ornithology, Jozsef-korut, 65, Budapest 
VIII., Hungary, accompanied by a notice stating the locality, 
time and particulars of capture. 

Birp-Lire 1x Dvusiin Bay.— Under this title Mr. 
Alexander Williams gives an interesting account of the changes 
in the sea and shore bird-life of the vicinity of Dublin during 
the last twenty-five years (Irish Nat., 1908, pp. 165-170). 

172 REVIEW. 

How to Attract and Protect Wild Birds. By Martin 
Hiesemann. Translated by Emma S. Buchheim, with an 
introduction by Her Grace the Duchess of Bedford. 
(Witherby & Co.) Illustrated. ls. 6d. net. 

THE purpose of this little book is to set forth the methods 
employed by the Baron von Berlepsch to provide suitable 
nesting-places and food for various birds, and to protect them 
from their enemies. Wonderful success has attended these 
methods at Seebach, where exhaustive experiments have been 
made for many years by Baron von Berlepsch. The 
statement that “we can only preserve and increase our 
birds by restoring . .... the opportunities for nesting 
of which we have robbed them” is perhaps more applic- 
able in Germany, where high forestry has robbed many 
birds of nesting-places by the cutting down of decaying 
trees and undergrowth, than it isin England. At the same 
time the fact that the number of birds can be actually 
increased by providing them with suitable nesting- 
places is a most interesting one, and is sufficiently sub- 
stantiated by the experiments here described. All our 
readers are probably well aware of the value of nesting-boxes 
as means of attracting such birds as Tits, Nuthatches and 
Wrynecks, but we have never heard of Woodpeckers nesting | 
in boxes in England as they do in Germany. This may be 
due to the fact that old timber is much more plentiful 
in this country, but we are inclined to think that if the 
Berlepsch box were adopted under the conditions so carefully 
described in this little book, even Woodpeckers would 
be induced to nest in them. This nesting-box has been 
designed and is manufactured with elaborate care. After 
exhaustive experiments, the Baron made the most in- 
teresting discovery that all the holes made by the various 
species of Woodpeckers are formed on a uniform plan. 
Special machines have at length been constructed to produce 
“boxes”? which are faithful imitations of the Woodpecker’s 
nesting hole down to the smallest detail, and the use of these 
has met with remarkable success. Equally interesting are 
the methods here described of pruning and growing bushes in 
various ways to make them attractive to birds for nesting 
purposes, and also of feeding birds in winter in the most 
effective way at a minimum of cost. We may hope that the 
methods here described will be adopted so universally that 
people will compete as to how many nests they have in their 
gardens rather than as to how many birds they have caught 
or killed. 




ie ¥f' 
ede, BTS ray 
é Oy 
* ~ } 
re ee Sh Go 
Pa. } 
Yosh cy af ene. J 


A Work on this. subject, illustrated with BEAUTIFULLY. 
COLOURED PLATES, is now being issued. 

Write tor Full Prospectus and a Part for inspection to 

44, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 


Naturalists’ Camera, 
to07, MODEL, 
For Telephoto or Ordinary LENSES. 
| Lenses are used: | 
_ by the most 
skilled Bird | 

3 The following eae: 
ey — Spectally. recomniended : 
THE STIGMATIC SERIES II. F/6 (Convertible.) 
(A Rapid Long Focus Lens at a Moderate Price.) Y 
‘High or Moderate Power Telephoto Lenses (Original Make). 
We are Specialists in Cameras and Apparatus for Photo- Dentohow 


J. H. DALLMEYER, Limite, Enzi po, 

Showrooms: a5, NEWMAN ae + We NEASDEN, LONDON, NW. | me) a 



And Manufacturers of CABINETS and APPARATUS for Entomology, Birds? ce aha (| 

~vand. Skins, and all Branches of Natural. History. 


Speciality :—Objects for Nature Study, Drawing Classes, &c. 


All Books and Publications on: Natural History surpliea: 

- 86, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. (Five Doors from. — cs.) 

"Catalogue {102 pp.) ‘post Hee: 

DRI | Sb DS 
PoOrey BY’ WH. F. WITHERBY, FZ:5.,’ MB.0.U. 
BoololLED BY W. P. PYCRAFT, ‘A:1.8; M.B.0.U. 

ConTENTS OF NUMBER 6, Vou. II. NovEmMBER 2, 1908. 

Some Early British Ornithologists and their Works, by 
W. H. Mullens, m.a., tu.M., M.B.o.u. IV.—Martin 

Martin (Ob. 1719) .. ; Page 173 
Nesting Habits of the Marsh- Warbler, by Percy Lil Bunyard, 
F.Z.S., M.B.O.U. 183 

On the Down- Plumage and Mouth-Coloration of Some 
Nestling Birds. by C. B. Ticehurst, M.A., M.R.C.S., 

LR. 0.P;, M.B.0:U. a 186 
On the Mouth-Coloration of Some Nestling Birds, by 

Annie C, Jackson .. 195 
Notes on the Common Cuckoo in India, by Major Eig) AO 

Magrath, M.B.0.U. .. : : 197 

Notes :—Wood-Pigeon “ Diphtheria ” (Editors). “Barred 
Warblers in Norfolk (E. C. Arnold and F. G. Penrose). 
Yellow-Browed Warblers, Red-Breasted Flycatchers, 
Bluethroats and other Birds in Norfolk (F. I. Richards). 
Yellow-Browed Warblers in Yorkshire (Arthur R. Gale 
and H. F. Witherby). A Sussex Rufous Warbler 
(M. J. Nicoll). White Wagtail interbreeding with Pied 
Wagtail in Devonshire (Amyas W. Champernowne). 
Lesser Redpoll Nesting in Essex (Leonard Gray). 
Breeding of the Crossbill in County Dublin (R. 
Hamilton Hunter). Cirl Bunting Singing in October 
(Chas. Oldham). Late Nest of the Kingfisher (Graham 
W. Murdoch). Scops-Owl off Aberdeenshire (EK. R. 
Paton). Honey-Buzzard in Shropshire (H. E. Forrest). 
Grey Phalarope in Summer in Devonshire (Amyas W. 
Champernowne). Nesting of the Common Snipe in Kent 
(C. B. Ticehurst). Pectoral Sandpipiper and Bartram’s 
Sandpiper in Kent (M. J. Nicoll). Pectoral Sandpiper in 
Norfolk (E. C. Arnold). The Levantine Shearwater in 
British Waters (H. F. Witherby). Short Notes a 199 

(Ob. 1719). 
Tue islands of the Outer Hebrides have from an early 
period attracted the attention of the traveller and the 


naturalist. The romantic wildness of their situation, 
their difficulty of access, and the strange manners and 
customs of their sequestered population, have all 
appealed strongly to the curious inquirer, and we thus 
have a considerable mass of information concerning them 
and, incidentally, their natural history, compiled at a 
time when the fauna of far more accessible and perhaps 
important districts remained neglected and unrecorded. 
Far out in the wild Atlantic, over one hundred miles 
from the mainland of Scotland, lies the lonely island of 
St. Kilda, the ‘“ Hirta” of the ancients. Although 
mentioned briefly by Joh. de Fordun (0b. circa, 1380) 
in his ‘‘ Scoti-chronicon,”’ and by Boethius (1465-1536) 
in the “ Scotorum Historia,” published in 1527, the first 
detailed account we have of the Island of St. Kilda, 
and certainly the first made from personal observation, 
is that dealt with in the present article. It was prepared 
by Martin Martin, a factor of the Clan Macleod, who in 
the year 1697, in the summer season and “ to the almost 
manifest hazard of the author’s life,” visited the island 
in company with Mr. John Campbell, minister of Hawis.* 
During Martin’s stay in St. Kilda, which extended over 
three weeks, he devoted a certain amount of time to the 
observation of the birds of the island, and amongst them 
to the Garefowl, or Great Auk, and it is chiefly owing 
to his description of this extinct and famous bird that 
Martin’s book—curious and entertaining as it otherwise is 
—is of such interest to the naturalist of the present day. 
Of Martin Martin we know but little. He was born, 
as we are told in the preface to his book, “ A late Voyage 
to St. Kilda,” “‘in one of the most spacious and fertile 
isles in the west of Scotland*; and besides his liberal 
education at the University, had the advantage of seeing 
foreign places, and the honour of conversing with some 

* For further particulars as to the early history of St. Kilda, wide 
Seton’s ‘St. Kilda, past and present.’ Edinburgh, 1 vol., 8vo, 

+ Possibly the Isle of Skye. 


ot the Royal Society, who raised his natural curiosity 
to survey the isles of Scotland more exactly than any 
other”; . ... Martin took his degree of M.A. at the 
University of Edinburgh in 1681, and subscribed his 
name to the customary oath as ‘ Martinus Martin,” 
and he seems to have died in 1719. In addition to his 
voyage to St. Kilda, Martin also published a more 
extensive work entitled “A Description of the Western 
Islands of Scotland,’ London, 1703, 1 vol., 8vo, which 
contains several short notices of the birds of the different 
islands. This book the great Dr. Johnson had studied 
before he made his tour to the Hebrides with the faithful 
Boswell in 1773. There is a copy of this work in the 
Advocates’ Library,* on the title page of which is 
endorsed the following :— 

“This very book accompanied Mr. Samuel Johnson 
and me in our Tour to the Hebrides in Autumn, 1773. 
Mr. Johnson told me that he had read Martin when he 
was very young. Martin was a native of the Isle of 
Sky, where a number of his relations still remain. His 
book is a very imperfect performance ; and he is erroneous 
as to many particulars, even some concerning his own 
island. Yet as it is the only Book upon the subject 
it is very generally known. I have seen a second edition 
of it. I cannot but have a kindness for him notwith- 
standing his defects. 

16 April, 1774. JAMES BOSWELL.” 

In Boswell’s “ Life of Johnson” we are told that the 
“ great lexicographer ”’ was at first pleased to approve 
of Martin’s work, but that afterwards he changed his 
opinion and hurled at the unfortunate author one of his 
ponderous bolts: ‘“‘ No man now writes so ill as Martin’s 
‘Account of the Hebrides’ is written. A man could not 
write so ill, if he should try.”’ Though surely poor 
Martin had done his best to disarm hostile criticism by 
informing us in his Preface that :— 

“This (t.e., “The Natural History of °em’’) I had a 

* Cf. Seton’s “‘ St. Kilda,” p. i8. 


particular regard to in the following description, and have 
everywhere taken notice of the Nature of the Climate 
and soil, of the Produce of the places by sea and Land 

. and that in such variety as I hope will make 
amends for what Defects may be found in my stile and 
way of Writing; for there’s a Wantonness in Language 
as well as in other things... .” 

A second edition of this book was published in London, 
1716, “‘ very much corrected.”” To come, however, to 
his more important work, the full title is as follows :— 

A late / Voyage / to / St. Kilda, / The Remotest of all 
the / Hebrides, / or / Western Isles of Scotland. / With / 
A History of the Island, Natural, Moral, / and Topo- 
graphical. Wherein is an Account .of their / Customs, 
Religion, Fish, Fowl, &c. - As also a Rela- / tion of a 
late Impostor there, pretended to be / Sent by St. John 
Baptist. / By M. Martin, Gent. / London: / Printed for 
D. Brown, and T. Goodwin: At the Black Swan and / 
Bible without Temple-Bar; and at the Queen’s Head 
against / St. Dunstan’s Church in Fleet Street. 

1 Vol. 8vo. 

Collation: 1 p. Short Title -+ 1 p. Title, reverse of 
both blank, + pp. 2, Address, -+ pp. 4, Preface, -- pp. 4, 
Contents, all unnumbered, +- pp. 158, map,* and plate 
of two birds to face p. 53. 

This, the first edition, of which a facsimile title page 
is given opposite, is rare. 

The second edition is said to have been published in 

The fourth and best edition, which was reprinted in 
Pinkerton’s ‘Collection of Voyages and Travels,” was 
published in London in 1753. 1 Vol., 8vo. 

This latter work, according to “The History of the 
Works of the Learned,” Vol. V., was “ very agreeable 
to the curious, especially to such as have any true taste 
for natural and experimental philosophy.” 

* A fac-simile of the map is reproduced on page 179. 



The ®Remotefe of all the 


Weftern Ifles of ScoTLanp. 
A Hiftory of the Ifland , Natural , Moral, 

and Topographical. Wherein is an Account of their 
Cuitoms , Religion, Fifh, Fowl, Gc. As alfo a Rela- 
fion ofa late 1MPOS TOR there, pretended to be 
Sent by St. John Baprs/t. 

By M. MARTIN, Gent. 

Peat si aD tO 
Printed for D Brown, and T. Goodwin: Atcthe Black Swan and 
Bible without Temple-Bar ; and at the Queen's Head againft 
St. Dunftan’s Church in Fleerfreet.. MDC XC VIII. 


The collation of the fourth edition is as follows :— 
pp. 4 unnumbered -+ pp. 79. The last two wrongly 
numbered 70 and 63 respectively. Frontispiece (a map 
and figure of two birds). 

Martin treats of the birds of St. Kilda in pp. 46-67 
of the first edition, and in pp. 26-36 of the fourth, the 
accounts in both editions being nearly identical. 

Amongst the land birds he enumerates :— 

‘“* Hawks extraordinary good, Eagles, Plovers, Crows, 
Wrens,* Stone-Chaker, Craker, Cuckoo.” 

Of the sea fowl, however, as may be expected, he gives 
us a fuller description ; and he thus commences it with 
his historic description of the Great Auk :— 

‘The Sea-Fowl are, first, Gairfowl, being the stateliest 
as well as the largest Sort, and above the size of a Solan 
Goose of a black colour, red about the Eyes, a large white 
spot under each, a long broad Bill; it stands stately, 
its whole Body erected, its wings short, flies not at all ; 
lays its egg upon the bare Rock, which if taken away, 
she lays no more for that Year; she is whole-footed, 
and has the hatching Spot upon her Breast, 7.e. a bare 
spot from which the Feathers have fallen off with the 
Heat in hatching; its Egg is twice as big as that of a 
Solan Goose, and is variously spotted Black, Green, 
and Dark; it comes without regard to any Wind, 
appears the first of May, and goes away the middle of 
June.” t | 

Martin further records the fact that the inhabitants 
of St. Kilda made use of ‘“‘the Bones, Wings, and 
Entrails of their sea-fowls”’ to add to the composts of 
straw and ashes with which they manured their lands, 
and this and the fact that they consumed the eggs and 
flesh of the Garefowl may have contributed to its 

* The list of Land birds is given as it stands, and it will be noted 
that though Martin mentions the Wren, he does not describe it. 

7 This quotation is from the fourth edition, the description of the 
Gair-fowl in the first edition is almost word for word the same, but a 
trifle more obscure, and has the amplification, “he is Palmipes, or 

v. | 

ech Ie Zod 


f? a7? 



De . 



extermination (cf. Symington Grieve, The Great Auk, 
London, 1885, 1 Vol., 4to, pp. 76 and 119). 

Robert Gray, in his invaluable work, ‘“ The Birds of 
the West of Scotland ” (Glasgow, MDCCCLXXI., 1 Vol., 
8vo), p. 442, says, “It is, I think, doubtful whether 
Martin ever saw the bird, as in another and larger work 
entitled, ‘A Description of the Western Islands of 
Scotland,’ published five years afterwards, and in which 
he gives a full account of St. Kilda and its birds, he does 
not even mention it, but it should be noted that the 
description of the birds in this book is not in any way 
so complete as that in the same author’s ‘A late Voyage 
to St. Kilda.’ ”’ 

In this work Martin gives a considerable account of 
the Solan Goose, and amongst other curious statements, 
tells us :— 

“The Solan Geese are always the surest sign of Her- 
rings, for where-ever the one is seen, the other is always 
not far off. There is a Tribe of Barren Solan Geese 
which have no Nests, and sit upon the bare Rock ; these 
are not the Young Fowls of an Year old, whose dark 
colour would soon distinguish them, but old ones, in all 
things like the rest; these have a Province, as it were, 
allotted to them, and are in a separated state from the 
others, having a Rock two hundred Paces distant from 
all other; neither do they meddle with, or approach to 
those Hatching, or any other Fowls; they sympathize 
and Fish together ; this being told me by the Inhabitants, 
was afterwards confirmed to me several times by my 
own observation ”’ (Ist ed., p. 52). 

And of the Fulmar :— 

‘And when the young Fulmar is ready to take Wing, 
he being approached, ejects a quantity of pure Oyl out 
at his Bill, and will make sure to hit any that attacks 
him, in the Face, though seven Paces distant . . . . but 
the Inhabitants take care to prevent this by surprizing 
the Fowl behind, having for this purpose a wooden dish 
fixed to the end of their Rods, which they hold before 


his Bill as he spouts out the Oyl; they surprize him also 
from behind by taking hold of his Bill, which they tie 
with a thread, and upon their return home they untie 
it with a Dish under to receive the Oil... .” (p. 56, 
op. cit.). 

Among his observations on the nesting habits of the 
sea birds the following passage may be quoted :— 

“Every Fowl lays an Egg three different times 
(except the Gair-fowl and Fulmar, which lay but one) ; 
if the First or Second Egg be taken away, every Fowl 
lays but one other Egg that Year, except the Sea-Malls, 
and they ordinarily lay the Third Egg, whether the First 
and second Eggs be taken away or no ”’ (p. 64, op. czt.). 

The supply of sea-fowl was of course a most important 
factor in the life of the island, and Martin computed the 
consumption of Gannets alone as follows :— 

‘We made particular Enquiry after the number of 
Solan Geese consumed by each Family the Year before 
we came there, and it amounted to Twenty two thousand 
five hundred in the whole Island, which they said was 
less than they ordinarily did, a great many being lost by 
the badness of the season, and the great Current into 
which they must be thrown when they take them, the 
Rock being of such an extraordinary Height, that they 
cannot reach the boat” (p. 115, op. cit.). 

Only the briefest notice can here be made of the 
manners and customs of the inhabitants of St. Kilda, 
“of their dexterity in climbing,” in which “‘ custom had 
perfected them, so that it is become familiar to them 
almost from their cradles ; the young boys of three years 
old begin to climb the walls of their Houses ”—“‘ of the 
beauty of their voices and the soundness of their lungs,” 
to which “‘ the Solan Goose Egg supp’d Raw doth not a 
little contribute.’’ How they possessed but one steel and 
tinder-box among a population of one hundred and 
eighty souls ; and how their native ignorance alone pre- 
vented them from being the most fortunate of mankind. 

‘There is this only wanting to make them the Happiest 


People in this Habitable globe, viz., That they themselves 
do not know how happy they are, and how much they 
are above the Avarice and Slavery of the rest of 

Enough perhaps has been quoted to show the nature 
of this somewhat rare and curious book, the precursor | 
of many others dealing with St. Kilda and the Scottish 
Islands. Among which may be mentioned the Rev. A. 
Buchan’s ‘“ Description of St. Kilda, the most remote 
Western Isle of Scotland,’ published in Edinburgh, 
1741; the Rev. Kenneth Macaulay’s ““ A Voyage to and 
History of St. Kilda,” London, 1764; an anonymous 
work entitled “A Voyage to Scotland, the Orkneys and 
the Western Isles of Scotland,’ London, 1751; and the 
‘** Travels in the Western Hebrides: from 1782 to 1790,” 
London, 1793, by the Rev. John Lane Buchanan [in no 
way to be confounded with George Buchanan (1506-1582), 
the Scotch historian], which last work affords us the 
pleasing statement that :— 

“The Gare Fowl is four feet long, and supposed to 
be the pigeon of South America.”’ 

And so farewell to Martin Martin; would that he had 
noted more of what he saw in St. Kilda when he set out 
for that almost “ unknown land,” having, as he tells us, 
““embark’d at the Isle of Esay in Hawies the 29th of 
May, at six in the Afternoon, 1697. The Wind at 8.E.” 

ce 1854 



PERCY F. BUNYARD, F.z.s., M.B.0.U. 

Mr. WarDE has described* the nesting habits 
of the Marsh-Warbler (Acrocephalus palustris) so ad- 
mirably that perhaps little that is new can be added 
to his observations. Nevertheless, the bird is so rare 
as a breeding species in this country that a short account 
of my experiences with two pairs this summer may be 
of interest. On June 26th I received a telegram from 
a friend in Somersetshire to say that he had found a 
nest with eggs, and had also another pair of birds under 
observation. In the hope of hearing the birds singing 
we were on the spot where the nest had been located 
(elevation 500 ft. above sea-level) just after sunrise, but 
only heard a few notes during a wait of some few minutes. 
My companion then took me to the nest, which was 
situated in a broad, rough, overgrown hedge (composed 
of whitethorn and elder) on the side of a lane, and 
bordering a field of wheat. The nest was on the field side 
of the hedge, about three feet from the ground, and was 
beautifully concealed (a good deal of herbage was removed 
for the purpose of photographing). The nest was sup- 
ported by two stems of bracken, and one of stinging nettle, 
round which the nest had been built. This nest resembled 
in general appearance that of a Whitethroat much more 
than that of a Reed-Warbler. It was loosely constructed 
on the exterior, and the interior was well and evenly lined. 
The materials used in the exterior were rather coarse grass, 
two pieces of frayed-out cotton, and one small feather 
(possibly from one of the birds). Finer grass was used 
as the linmg was approached, and this was composed of 

* « Zoologist,’’ 1906, pp. 401-9. 


fine fibrous roots, a single flowering head of grass (still 
green), and a very little horsehair. The outside measure- 
ments of the nest were: depth, 34 in.; diameter, 4 in., 
extending to 5 in. where the nest was built round the stems 
of the supports, tapering downwards to the centre almost 

Nest of Marsh-Warbler in Somerset, J une 28th, 1908. 

to a point ; interior diameter, 2 in.; depth, 14 in. This 
nest was originally located on June 10th by watching the 
birds building, and at the time of my visit, June 28th, 
it contained four eggs in an advanced state of incubation. 

They are quite typical, and cannot be confused with the | 


egos of the Reed-Warbler, and indeed I have not yet seen 
well-authenticated eggs of the Marsh-Warbler which could 
easily be mistaken for the eggs of the Reed-Warbler. 
The British-taken eggs of A. palustris appear to me rather 
larger and less pointed than Continental eggs, and it would 
be interesting to know if others have noticed this. I 
re-visited this nest about 11 a.m. for the purpose of taking 
the photograph here reproduced. The bird was sitting, but 
slid off quietly on my approach, and although I remained 
in the vicinity of the nest (in the hope of getting a 
photograph of the bird itself) for nearly two hours, the 
alarm-note was only uttered once, and the birds were 
nowhere to be seen. I was disappointed in not seeing 
and hearing more of the birds, and their extreme shyness 
and quietness struck me more than anything in con- 
nection with this interesting experience. 

On the evening of the same date we visited a small 
osier bed (150 ft. above sea-level) in which some other 
Marsh-Warblers had been previously located, and after 
watching for some time we saw the birds continually 
diving down among the rough growth near a large plant 
of the cow-parsnip, in which we afterwards found a nest 
containing five newly-hatched young. This nest was 
supported by three stems of the plant, and was similar 
to the one just described. The mouths of the young 
were of a beautiful rich lemon-yellow, and on the back 
of the tongue were two conspicuous black spots, placed 

( 186") 


C. B. TICEKHURST, M.A... M:B.C.S., “L:E.C.P:, M:B207u: 

OF all the books which have been written on British birds 
not one, as yet, has dealt satisfactorily with the question 
of the sequence of plumages and, so far as I know, none give 
even the barest description of the down or natal plumage of 
even our commonest birds. 

Mr. Pycraft deplored this fact, and in the course of two 
excellent articles (vide antea, Vol. 1, pp. 102 and 162) gave a 
brief outline of the different kinds of down-plumage recognis- 
able, and made some remarks upon their significance, at the 
same time suggesting that further investigation into the 
matter would be valuable. 

The sequence of plumages is a study which has long 
interested me; and I am certain that the collection of a large 
amount of material in reference to this subject, as well as on 
the coloration of the mouths of nestlings, as suggested by 
Mr. Pyeraft (cf. Vol. I., p. 129) would, when worked out on 
comparative lines, yield some important results relating to the 
question of morphological ornithology. 

As Mr. Pycraft has already explained (cf. Vol. I., p. 162) 
the different types of down, I shall here only state that in 
all the Passerine birds which I have examined, the type of 
down present is that of the pre-penna, and belongs to the 
mesoptyle generation. These pre-penne, I need hardly 
remark, are not distributed all over the body, but are arranged 
in definite tracts. Further, the development of the pre-penne 
in these tracts varies considerably in different genera, and 
even in the different species of the same genus. 

The inner supra-orbital tracts consist of few pre-pennz which 
are situated above the eye on each side, and from thence 



pass backwards, each tract forming, in most species, a line 
or crescent of down. It will be noticed that the inner supra- 
orbital tracts are present in every species which I have 
examined which has down at all. 

The outer supra-orbital tracts consist of two or three small, 
short pre-pennz on each side, situated between the edge of 
the upper eyelid and the inner supra-orbital tract. They are 
‘present in the Mistle-Thrush, Meadow and Red-throated 
Pipits, Chaffinch, and Brambling. 

The occipital tracts consist of two or three fairly large, 
well-developed, pre-penne situated on each side of the occiput. 

Oufer y 
tract 7, S 
$3 a Eye 
Oa ¥, =a Inner, » 
oe ii tract 

Occipital Se 
pr act Humeral tract 


° wae 
= ae 
ve . oa® e 
. 5 . 
Nie, ca . 
Piste % 
mitals A 
are r oe 
ree a oe SeKelie), e 
ESS KS cee *. 
“a fy ° wae au) “ 
2 ane tig ° 
. 4 -". sept go wets ie 
on oe 
i 2 

(Yaz) Femoral! 
Crurat tract 

Ventra! Crural 
tract tract 

Diagram showing the Down-tracts of Nestling Birds. 

The two tracts usually form a line, or crescent, of down when 
well developed. They are present in every species examined 
which has any down. 

The humeral tracts are usually well developed, and run 
obliquely downwards and outwards from the base of the neck 
across each humerus just in front of the shoulder joint. They 
are replaced by the “scapular” feathers of the juvenile 
plumage. They are present in all the birds that I have 
examined which have down, except the Wren (see note under 
this species). 

The spinal tract runs down the centre of the dorsum from 
about the level of the shoulder joint to the end of the sacrum 
in those species in which it is well developed. The length 


varies in different species, in some the anterior part being 
slightly developed or absent, in others the posterior part. 
The breadth is greatest in the lumbar region. This tract is 
present in all species examined except the Blue Tit (see note 
under this species). 

The ulnar tracts consist of small pre-pennze on the ulnar 
margin of each wing. Each pre-penna is replaced later by 
the secondaries, and in some cases by the secondary coverts. 
These tracts are absent in the Wheatear, Robin, all four Tits, 
and Wren. 

The femoral tracts are situated laterally on each side just 
beneath the femur. The pre-penne never seem to be long, 
and are more closely approximated to each other than in some 
of the other tracts. This tract is absent in the Thrushes and 
Robin, the Tits, Swallow, and Sand-Martin. 

The ventral tract is situated laterally on each side of the 
abdomen, and runs obliquely from the middle line towards 
the upper end of the femoral tract. In character it resembles 
the femoral tract, and is widest posteriorily. This tract is 
present in the Meadow-Pipit, Starling, and in all the Fringilline 
examined which have down. 

The crural tract consists of a few small inconspicuous pre- 
penne forming a circle round the lower end of the crus, just 
above the ankle joint. It was noted in the Red-throated 
Pipit, all the Fringillince examined which have down, and 
in the Snow-Bunting. 

I am indebted to my friend, Mr. J. L. Bonhote, for notes 
or specimens of the Bearded Tit, Red-throated Pipit, Tree- 
Sparrow, Brambling, Lesser Redpoll, Snow-Bunting, and 

MISTLE-THRUSH Twurdus viscivorus L. 

Down. Colour.—Greyish white, some pre-penne having 
buffish white tips. 
Distribution.—Inner and outer supra-orbital, occipital, 
humeral, spinal and ulnar. In some there is a pre-penna 
on the bastard wing. The outer supra-orbital tract is not 
found in the Blackbird or Song-Thrush. 

COLORATION OF Movutu. Inside, orange; no spots; ex- 
ternally, flanges lemon-yellow. 

SONG-THRUSH Turdus musicus L. 
Down. Colouwr.—Buffish white. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, spinal 
and ulnar. 
CoLoRATION OF Mourn. Inside, orange; no spots; flanges 



BLACKBIRD Turdus merula L. 

Down. Colour.—Greyish white. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, spinal 
and ulnar. 

CoLoRATION OF MoutuH. Inside, orange; no spots. 

WHEATEAR Sazicola enanthe (L.). 

Down. Colour.—Dark grey. 
Character.—Moderate length. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, spinal 
and femoral. It will be noted that there is no ulnar tract, 
and the spinal tract is a very short one, confined to the 
middle of the dorsum. 

CoLoRATION OF MoutH. Inside, orange ; no spots. 

REDBREAST Erithacus rubecula (L.). 
Down. Colour.—Dull jet-black. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, and 
spinal. Here also there is no ulnar tract, and the short 
spinal tract does not reach the sacrum. 
CoLORATION OF MoutuH. Inside, orange; no spots. 

WHITETHROAT Sylvia cinerea Bechst. 

Down. Absent. 

CoLORATION OF Movutu. Inside, yellowish orange; one 
brownish black spot at the base of the tongue on each 

LESSER WHITETHROAT Sylvia curruca (L.). 

Down. Absent. 
CoLORATION OF Mourn. Inside, orange. Tongue spots as in 
S. cinerea. 

GARDEN-WARBLER Sylvia hortensis (Bechst.). 

Down. Absent. — 

CoLoRATION OF Movutu. Inside, deep pink with a violet 
tinge ; one brownish oval spot on each side of the base of 
the tongue. 

N.B.—The absence of down in these three species of the genus 
Sylvia is noteworthy. 

HEDGE-SPARROW Accentor modularis (L.). 

Down. Colour.—Greyish black. 
Character.—Fairly long, and well developed. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, spinal, 
ulnar and femoral. 


CoLoratTion oF Mout. Inside, orange. A _ black spot 
on each spur of the base of the tongue, and another, 
brown and more diffuse, situated subterminally. The 
latter disappears completely 4-5 days after the chick 
is hatched, which accounts for the fact that it was not 
noted by Mr. Pycraft (cf. antea, Vol. I., p. 130). 

BEARDED TITMOUSE Panurus biarmicus (L.). 
Down. Absent. (N.B.—Spirit specimen.) 

GREAT TITMOUSE Parus major L. 

Down. Colour.—Whitish grey. 
Character.—Moderate in length but scanty, a few pre-pennz 
only in each tract. 
Distribution.—Inner_ supra-orbital, occipital, humeral and 

CoLoraTION OF Movutu. Inside, lemon-yellow; no tongue 

COAL-TITMOUSE Parus ater L. 

Down. Colour.—Greyish. 
Character.—Moderate in length but very scanty, consist- 
ing of a few pre-penne only in each tract. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, and 

CoLorATION OF Mouru.—Inside, orange; no tongue spots ; 
externally, flanges lemon-yellow. 

MARSH-TITMOUSE Parus palustris I. 
Down. Colour.—Grey. 
Character.—Rather short in length, and very scanty, 
consisting of a few pre-pennz only in each tract. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, and 
CoLORATION OF MoutuH. Inside, orange; no tongue spots. 

BLUE TITMOUSE Parus ceruleus L. 

Down. Colour.—White. 

Character.—Moderate in length but very scanty, consist- 
ing of a few pre-penne only in each tract. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, and humeral. 

CoLoRATION OF Mourn. Inside, lemon-yellow; no tongue 

spots ; externally, flanges lighter yellow. 

N.B.—It is possible that the scanty pre-penne which form 
the spinal tract may have been rubbed off in those in- 
dividuals which I examined; if not, the absence of that 
tract in this species is worthy of note. 


WREN Troglodytes parvulus K. L. Koch. 

Down. Colour.—Greyish black. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital and spinal. 

CoLORATION OF Moutu. Inside, yellow; no tongue spots ; 

externally, flanges lemon-yellow. 

N.B.—Since this is the only species in which I have noted 
the absence of the humeral tract, it is possible that it is 
slightly developed but had become rubbed off in the 

PIED WAGTAIL Motacilla lugubris Temm. 

Down. Colour.—Grey. 
Character.—Moderate in length. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, spinal, 
ulnar and femoral. 

CoLorATION OF Mourn. Inside, yellow; no tongue spots ; 
externally, flanges very pale yeliow. 

MEADOW-PIPIT Anthus pratensis (L.). 

Down. Colour.—Whitish grey. 
Character.—Moderate in length. 
Distribution.—Inner and outer supra-orbital, occipital, 
humeral, spinal, ulnar, femoral and ventral, the last being 
very scanty. 

CoLORATION OF MoutuH. Inside, deep pink ; no tongue spots ; 
externally, flanges orange. | 

RED-THROATED PIPIT Anthus cervinus (Pall.). 

Down. Colour.—Greyish black. 
Character.—Long ; femoral and crural tracts scanty. 
Distribution.—Inner and outer supra-orbital, occipital, 
humeral, spinal, ulnar, femoral and crural. 
N.B.—As I only had a spirit specimen to examine it is possible 
that the ventral tract, which in the Meadow-Pipit is only 
slightly developed, may have been overlooked. 


SWALLOW Airundo rustica L. 

Down. Colour.—Grey. 
Character.—Fairly long. Tracts scanty. 
Distribution.—Inner_ supra-orbital, occipital, humeral and 

CoLORATION OF Movutu. Inside, lemon-yellow; no tongue 
spots; externally, flanges whitish. 


SAND-MARTIN Cotile riparia (L.). 

Down. Colour.—Gray, rather darker on the humeral tract. 
Character.—Rather short, scanty. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, spinal 
and ulnar. On the last two very scanty. Prepenne of 
ulnar tract present on the secondary coverts. 

CoLorATION OF Movutu. Inside, lemon-yellow; no tongue 
spots; externally, flanges lemon-yellow. 

GREENFINCH Ligurinus chloris (L.). 

Down. Colour.—Greyish white. 
Character.—Medium length, sparse on the crural and ventral 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, spinal, 
ulnar, femoral, ventral and crural. 

CoLoraTION OF Movutu. Inside, deep crimson, no tongue 
spots ; externally, gape white, beak horn colour with a 
yellowish tint. 

HAWFINCH Coccothraustes vulgaris Pall. 

Down. Colour.—Snow-white. 
Character.—Long and plentiful. 
Distribution.—Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, spinal, 
ulnar, femoral, ventral and crural. 

CoLorATION OF Mourn. Inside, violet pink; no tongue 
spots; externally, flanges yellowish orange and whitish 
at the angles. The bill during the first two days is not 
markedly large, but it rapidly grows in size. 

HOUSE-SPARROW Passer domesticus (L.). 

Down. Absent. 
CoLORATION OF Movutu. Inside, yellow; no tongue spots ; 
externally, flanges lighter yellow. 

TREE-SPARROW Passer montanus (L.). 

Down. Absent. 

N.B.—Taking into consideration the development of the down 
in the other Fringilline the absence of it in the genus 
Passer is a most remarkable fact. 

CHAFFINCH Fringilla celebs L. 

Down. Colour.—Greyish. 
Character.—Moderate in length and quantity. 
Distribution. —Inner and outer supra-orbital, occipital, 
humeral, spinal, ulnar, femoral, ventral and crural. 


CoLORATION OF MovutH. Inside, violet red, but the hard 
palate is orange ; no tongue spots ; externally flanges white. 

BRAMBLING Fringilla montifringilla L. 

Down. Colour.—White. 

Character.—Length moderate, well developed, except on the 
crural tract. 

Distributton.—Inner and outer supra-orbital, occipital, 
humeral, spinal, ulnar, ventral, femoral and crural. Pre- 
penne of the ulnar tract are attached to the secondaries 
only. Ventral tract well marked at the posterior end. 

(N.B.—From spirit specimen. ) 

LESSER REDPOLL Linota rufescens (Vieill.). 

Down. Colour.—Greyish. 
Character.—Long ; ventral and crural tracts scanty, pre- 
penne on the secondaries only make up the ulnar tract. 
Distribution. — Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, 
spinal, ulnar, femoral, ventral and crural. 

CoLoRATION OF MoutH. Inside, carmine; no tongue spots; 
externally, gape white, a carmine spot at angle of gape due 
to colour of inside showing through. 

BULLFINCH Pyrrhula europea Vieill. 

Down. Colour.—Blackish grey. 
Character.—Abundant and long. 
Distribution. — Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, 
spinal, ulnar, femoral, ventral and crural. Pre-penne of 
the ulnar tract are present on the secondaries and their 

CoLorATION OF Moutu. Inside, violet red, no tongue spots ; 

externally, flanges whitish. 

SNOW-BUNTING Plectrophenax nivalis (L.). 

Down. Colour.—Dark grey. 
Character.—Fairly long, spinal tract thicker anteriorly than 
posteriorly, crural very scanty and minute, the other tracts 
well marked. 
Distribution. — Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, 
spinal, ulnar, femora! and crural. 

CoLoRATION OF Movutu. Inside, not noted; externally, 

gape yellow ; beak yellow. 

STARLING Sturnus vulgaris L. 

Down. Colour.—Greyish white, a shade darker on the head, 
Character.—Fairly long and plentiful. 


Distribution. — Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, 
spinal, ulnar, femoral, and ventral. Spinal tract long and 
well marked. Ventral tract scanty and not well marked. 

CoLoRATION OF Mout. Inside, orange; flanges very broad 
and lemon-yellow in colour; no tongue spots; gape huge; 
externally, flanges lemon-yellow. 

SKYLARK Alauda arvensis L. 

Down. Colour.—Light sandy, dark at the base of the pre- 
penne giving the whole a peculiar “ leveret ” appearance. 
Character.—Fairly long and abundant. 

Distribution. — Inner supra-orbital, occipital, humeral, 
spinal, ulnar, and femoral; spinal tract confined to small 
area over and just above sacrum. 

CoLoRATION OF Movutn. Inside, orange-yellow; two oval 
black spots at base of tongue situated bilaterally, another 
triangular spot forms the tip of the tongue; externally, 
flanges whitish. 

KINGFISHER Alcedo ispida L. 
Down. Absent. (N.B.—Spirit specimen.) 




Havine read, with interest, Mr. Pycraft’s article on the 
colouring of the inside of the mouths of nestling birds in 
British Birps for October, 1907, I determined, if possible, 
to make some observations during the following spring; the 
more so, as but little material seemed to have been collected 
on the subject. I now give the results of my observations, 
which seem to prove that the spotted type of mouth in 
nestlings is far from common. 

Unfortunately, I was not able to examine any of the Tit 
family ; for nesting as they do in crevices and holes it is 
difficult to reach the young birds. I was struck with the fact 
that all the downy chicks of the Order ZLimicole which 
I have had the opportunity of examining, had very in- 
conspicuously coloured mouths. But before one can draw any 
conclusions as to the significance of this, it will be necessary 
to havea complete list of the colouring of the inside of the 
mouths in nestling birds of the helpless type. 

MistLEe-THrusH. — Mouth (inside), yellow, vunspotted. 
Flanges (outside), pale yellow. Nest well lighted. 

Sone-TuHrRusH. — Mouth (inside), orange-yellow. Flanges 
not nearly so large and conspicuous as those of the young 
Starlings. Nest well lighted. 

WHITETHROAT.— Mouth (inside), yellow, with a dark semi- 
circular band stretching from one spur of the tongue to the 
other. The band should rather be called ‘dusky,” than 

— Wittow-Wren.—Mouth (inside), unspotted yellow. Nest 
well lighted. 

Wren.—Mouth (inside) and flanges very pale lemon-yellow, 
unspotted. Nest badly lighted. 

TREE-CREEPER.— Mouth (inside), yellow, unspotted. The 


nest was situated in the split trunk of a pine tree and was 
fairly well lighted. 

Grey WacrTaiLt.—WMouth (inside), yellow, unspotted. Nest 
placed under a ledge of rock, fairly lighted. 

Meavow-Prrir.— Mouth (inside), flesh-coloured, rather paler 
on the spurs of the tongue; unspotted. 

SpoTttEeD FrycatcHer.—Mouth (inside), yellow, unspotted. 
Nest well lighted. 

GREENFINCH.—Mouth (inside). The tongue red, spurs 
white; palate red, shading into purple. Flanges (inside), 
purple; (outside), deep red. Nest moderately lighted. 

CHAFFINCH.—Mouth (inside) purplish red. Flanges (out- 
side), pale yellow. Nest well lighted. 

LesseER ReEppoti. — Mouth (inside). The tongue and 
flanges purplish-red, spurs of tongue white, palate white and 
horny. Edges of upper mandible, inside, blackish. Flanges 
(outside), pink. Nest well lighted. 

BuuuFincH. Mouth (inside), red. Flanges (inside), purple ; 
(outside), pale yellow. Nest moderately lighted. 

YELLOW Buntine.—WMouth (inside), purple-red, unspotted. 
Nest well lighted. 

STaRLING.—WMouth (inside), yellow, palate bristly. Flanges 
(outside), light yellow and very large and conspicuous. Nest 
in a thick yew tree and badly lighted. 

SKYLARK.—WMouth (inside), yellow, with three black spots 
on the tongue forming the angles of a triangle, the base of the 
triangle corresponding to the base of the tongue; also a 
blackish spot at the tip of the lower and upper mandibles. 
Nest well lighted. , 

Woop-Picron.—WMouth (inside), dirty white. Flanges in- 
conspicuous dark grey. Nest moderately lighted. 

Lapwine.—WMouth (inside), tongue and palate white, palate 
having peculiar little roughnesses like tiny teeth running back 
towards the throat. 

OysTER-CATCHER.—Mouth (inside), fleshy-pink. 

Common SANDPIPER.—WMouth (inside), bluish-grey. 

Common REpsHANK.— Mouth (inside), pale bluish-grey. 

CuRLEW.—Mouth (inside), pale fleshy-pink. 

Arctic Trern.— Mouth (inside), fleshy-pink. 




So much has been written on the subject of the Common 
Cuckoo (Cuculus canorus) that one might suppose nothing 
more remains to be recorded; yet the following notes, 
based on observations of this species in the North- 
Western Himalayas, may be of interest to the readers 
of British Brrps. 

In the North-Western Himalayas this bird arrives 
at its breeding grounds about the middle of April, and 
from the middle of this month to the middle of June its 
familiar call is a common sound on the hill-sides ; but 
once the middle of the month is past it gradually 
decreases. The latest record I have is July 13th. 
During the time that the call is uttered, I have noticed 
that the body is by no means invariably held in the 
horizontal position with which we are most of us familiar. 
On the contrary, it sometimes assumes a semi-upright 
attitude. Further, I have noticed that while the call 
is being made the body is swayed slightly from side to 
side, and this swaying motion is especially marked in the 

In my experience the Cuckoo’s notes do not alter as 
the season advances, though the contrary is usually held 
to be the case. The bird is probably more vigorous 
at the beginning of the season, and the call may then 
be more prolonged. The typical tri-syllabic call is, I 
believe, entirely connected with the proximity of the 
female. The well-known variations of the ordinary call 
are as likely to be heard at the beginning as at the end 
of the season. 

It is strange that no observer seems to have noticed 
that the Cuckoo, like many, if not all, song-birds, acquires 


his full song only by degrees. I have met with it early in 
April in the plains, when in the spring passage, and heard 
the ludicrous attempts to produce the call result, for the 
first two hours at any rate, in nothing more than a croak- 
ing sound! The full call is, however, acquired in a day 
or two, but is very feeble: probably the full compass is 
not attained till the breeding grounds are reached, that 
is to say, when the bird has become sexually ripe. 

As regards the eggs of the Cuckoo in India I can say 
but little from personal observation. But in the summer 
of 1907, when in the Thandiani-Hazara district, at an 
elevation of 9,000 feet, I found three blue Cuckoos’ eggs 
in nests of the Dark Grey Bush-Chat (Orezcola ferrea) 
and the Indian Blue-Chat (Larvivora brunnea), and as 
Cuculus canorus was the only Cuckoo, to my knowledge, 
frequenting the vicinity of these nests, I could only 
attribute the eggs to this species. In order to make sure, 
however, I shot a female Cuckoo, and with great luck 
took from the oviduct fragments of shell (the egg having 
been broken) of a beautiful pure blue, which tallied with 
the egg found in the nest of Larvivora brunnea. The eggs 
of this bird, it may be remarked, were of a delicate, 
spotless, blue colour, while those of the Dark Grey Bush- 
Chat were spotted with a few tiny specks of darker 
greenish-blue. But the eggs of this last species present 
some variation, showing different shades of pale bluish- 
green, speckled more or less densely with chestnut and 
pale rufous. 


Nort the least of the aims of BririsH Birps is the advance- 
ment of the Study of Economic Ornithology, and the great 
interest which was taken in our endeavour to penetrate the 
mystery surrounding the so-called ‘“ diphtheria” 1 Wood- 
Pigeons shows that our readers are in entire sympathy with 
this most important object. 

The appeal which we made for material met with a most 
hearty response ; and in the able hands of Dr. C. B. Ticehurst 
this material was made to yield some most interesting and 
valuable results. But, as may be seen from his Report, 
published in our issue for August last, many points require 
further elucidation; and we feel that, having gone so far it is 
our bounden duty to go further, till all possible facts have 
been ascertained. We, therefore, turn again to our readers. 
for help in providing material which Dr. Ticehurst, once 
more, has kindly promised to deal with. 

It has been contended that Wood-Pigeon diphtheria is com- 
municable to man; but. so far, Dr. Ticehurst’s investigations 
do not lend much support to this view. It is certainly 
significant that it appears to be by no means so readily spread 
among other birds—and notably game-birds—as was supposed. 
Having regard to the importance of this aspect of the disease, 
and to the statements which have been made thereon by 
other workers with regard to the spread of the disease among 
domesticated animals and man, further research is emphati- 
cally to be desired. 

The importance of this enquiry must be perfectly obvious 
to everyone ; and we may remark that its significance is fully 
appreciated—as might be expected—by medical men. The 
‘Lancet,’ September 5th, 1908, in commenting on Dr. 
Ticehurst’s paper in our Magazine, expressed a hope that we 
might be induced to continue what we had begun. And as. 
Dr. Ticehurst is again willing to place his skill at our disposal 
we appeal to our readers for help during the coming winter in 
filling up the schedules issued with this number. And it may 
be remarked that we shall be as grateful for negative, as for 
positive evidence. Further copies of the schedule will be sent 
to any of our readers who may desire to enlist the sympathy of 
others who, as yet, do not happen to be among our subscribers. 

THe Epirors. 



On September llth, Mr. H. A. V. Maynard, shooting with 
me in the Cley bushes, secured an immature specimen of 
the Barred Warbler (Sylvia nisoria). Its appearance in the 
bushes was very light, and it showed no inclination to skulk. 
The wind was N.W., and it had been raining all the morning, 
the bird making its appearance just after the clearing 


On September 12th T. Cringle, one of Lord Leicester’s 
keepers, shot a young female Barred Warbler on the Wells 
Marshes. Unfortunately it was very badly damaged by the 
shot. There were only a few birds in the bushes on that 
day, one Common Whitethroat being the only other warble: 
recognised, but there was a distinct increase of Meadow- 
Pipits on the marsh, and I think there were some Rock-Pipits 



Tue following notes from the neighbourhood of Blakeney of 
the chief movements of migrants observed during September, 
1908, may be of interest. From September 7th to 20th the 
wind was chiefly westerly, south-westerly and southerly, and 
practically no migrating small birds were seen until September 
18th, when a large number of Pied Flycatchers and a good 
many Common Redstarts appeared, but by September 21st 
they had nearly all left. After a wet day with a south-west 
wind on the 22nd, the weather cleared and the wind veered 
to the north-east on the 23rd. On the morning of this day I 
shot an immature Red-breasted Flycatcher (Muscicapa parva). 
A few Redstarts and Blackcaps and one Ring-Ouzel were the 
only other migrants seen in the morning, but during the 
afternoon a large migration setin. Myson (W. R. G. Richards) 
shot a female Yellow-browed Warbler (Phylloscopus super- 
ciliosus) and Pinchen (a well-known local fowler) shot a male 
of the same species. Both birds were very tame. We saw 
also numbers of Redstarts and a few Pied Flycatchers, Black- 
caps, Garden-Warblers and Ring-Ouzels, while one Bluethroat 
(Cyanecula swecica) was also seen and shot. On September 
24th Ramm (another well-known local fowler) shot a mature 
male Red-breasted Flycatcher in very fine plumage, and 

NOTES. 201 

several more Bluethroats were seen and shot. On the 25th 
the wind went back to the west and the migration con- 
siderably decreased, but Ramm shot another immature male 
Red-breasted Flycatcher, and several more Bluethroats were 
obtained. On the 26th, the wind being south-westerly, the 
birds had nearly all gone, while on the 27th we saw only one 

Since leaving Norfolk I have had word from Ramm that 
he shot another Yellow-browed Warbler (a mature male) on 
October 2nd. 

F. I. Ricwarps. 


On September 23rd, 1908, I shot in Holderness, Yorkshire, 
on the sea coast, a male (apparently adult) of the Yellow- 
browed Warbler (Phylloscopus superciliosus). The yellow bars 
on the wings attracted my attention, as the bird fluttered up 
from some buckthorn bushes, the flight much resembling that 
of the Willow-Wren. Athick sea-fog prevailed, following a night 
of heavy rain, the wind being slight, and from the south-east. 
The bird was identified in the flesh by Mr. H. F. Witherby, 
who kindly prepared the skin forme. The gizzard was full 
of small flies and other minute insects. 


On September 30th I had the good fortune to obtain a 
Yellow-browed Warbler near the same place as the one 
recorded above. The weather was (and had been) clear 
and hot, with a light southerly breeze. There was very little 
movement of birds apparent, and the Yellow-browed Warbler 
was quite alone, and was very lively. Its gizzard was full of 
small flies, and the bird was fat, so that it may well have been 
travelling down the coast in a leisurely fashion. It was a 
male and, judging by the texture of the skull, which I have 
always found an infallible test, an adult. 

H. F. WirHersy. 

Aédon galactodes or A. familiaris ? 

In Borrer’s ‘‘ Birds of Sussex”? (pp. 63-64), there is an 
account of the first example of the Rufous Warbler shot in the 
British Islands. Mr. A. L. Butler has recently called my 
attention to the fact that the figure of this specimen is 
undoubtedly drawn from a specimen of Aédon familiaris, the 
brown central pair of rectrices, which is one of the chief 
characteristics of this form, being well shown in the plate. 


Can any of your readers inform me where the original 
‘specimen is? I do not recollect seeing it in the Booth 

If this example should prove to be referable to Aédon 
familiaris—which I strongly suspect—the specimen recorded 
by Mr. J. B. Nichols in your January number (Vol. I., p. 257) 
is the second recorded example of this form in the British 

M. J. NreoLn. 

[Borrer states that ae bird was moulting, and that the 
feathers on the back and tail, ‘especially the “central ones of 
the latter, are much worn” (Birds of Sussex, p. 64), which may 
account for the eee of these feathers. If correctly 
coloured the bird in the plate appears too dark on the back for 
A. familiaris.—EDs. | 


On April 8th last I noticed a White Wagtail on my lawn (near - 
Sidmouth). It only stayed a short time, though I was able to 
get a good view of it. As it did not put in an appearance again 
I imagined it to be only a traveller, but early in June I met 
with a bird, which may have been the same one, at the other 
end of the village. I watched it for some time feeding in a 
roadside ditch outside some farm buildings, after which I 
lost it. It was back at the same place about an hour later, 
this time accompanied by a male Pied Wagtail, with which 
pairing took place. It was not till June 13th that I was able 
to find the nest, which was situated in the stump of an old 
straw rick, and contained six eggs. I took these on the 
14th, as the rick was to be thrown down on the following day. 
‘They only differ from Pied Wagtails’ eggs with which I have 
been able to compare them, in having the surface markings 
brown without any shade of grey, and bolder in character. 
The bird appeared to me to be less suspicious than the Pied 
Wagtail usually is, and did not hesitate to go back to its nest 
while under observation. 

It may be well to add that I have had opportunities for 
watching White Wagtails at close quarters in Scotland, and 
that a pair of Pied Wagtails were nesting in the ivy of my 
house at the same time as the pair above recorded were nesting 
in‘the rick, so that I had good opportunities for comparing 
the hen Pied with the hen White Wagtail. The sharply 
‘defined black hood of the latter and the pure grey colour of 
its back and upper tail-coverts were most distinctive. 


NOTES. 203 


I po not know whether there are any records of the Lesser 
Redpoll’s nesting in Essex, but probably, in any case, instances 
are sufficiently uncommon to be worth noticing. A pair 
built a nest this year at the very top of a standard pear tree 
in my garden at Chelmsford. On July 28th the pair of old 
birds were accompanied by two young ones, and this little 
family party, a rather noisy one, remained about here for 
two or three weeks off and on, but have now apparently quite 
disappeared. The nest, on examination, proved to contain 
one much decomposed young one, so that apparently the 
clutch consisted of three eggs. 



ALTHouGH the common Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) has been 
noticed on several occasions in the Scalp, and elsewhere, in 
co. Dublin, there is no note of its having bred in the county, 
and all records of its appearances have been, I think, in June, 
July, or August, when small flocks usually wander over the 
country. The following notes of its breeding in co. Dublin 
this year may therefore be of interest. 

About mid-June, 1907, Mr. C. V. Stoney and myself saw 
a flock of fifteen Crossbills in the Scalp. This flock had in- 
creased to about twenty birds in August. They never left 
the neighbourhood during September, October, November, 
December, and in January we commenced to search most 
carefully for a nest. By March 7th the flock had been reduced 
to three or four pairs, and still there was no sign of a nest. 
On March 16th Mr. Stoney heard a Crossbill singing in the fir 
woods, and while trying to locate the bird he saw another 
Crossbill a few feet from him in a Scotch fir. Watching it, he 
saw it run along a dead branch of the tree with head down, 
and nip off with its bill a twig, and fly with it into a Scotch 
fir close by. The nest, about 35 feet up, could be distinctly 
seen with the aid of glasses, and was just commenced, being 
a mere platform of twigs, with daylight showing through. 
On March 28th I climbed to the nest and watched the sitting 
bird from a distance of about 18 in. for a long while. I 
touched its back with my fingers before it left the nest, and 
then it stayed quite near me all the time I was in the tree. 
The nest, which was very compact, was lined with dead 
grass—no feathers or fur—and it had the usual platform of 
larch and fir twigs. It contained three eggs, quite different 


to any Crossbill’s eggs I have ever seen, the ground colour 
being blue, almost as blue as in the egg of a Bullfinch, 
sparingly spotted with dark brown; one egg had a lilac 
streak. R. Hamitton HUNTER. 


Ar noon on October 18th—a dull, muggy morning—I heard 
a Cirl Bunting in full song at Heath, near Leighton Buzzard. 
During the quarter of an hour that I waited at the spot, 
the bird, which was perched on the top of a thorn hedge, 
sang persistently at intervals of a few seconds. Is not mid- 

October a late date for this species to be in song ? | 



On October 10th, 1908, I was informed that there was a 
Kingfisher’s nest in the banks of the Wenning, near Bentham, 
Yorkshire. I went and inspected the nest and found it to 
contain four young nearly ready to fly. The late date is 
remarkable, and the very warm weather we have been having 
may partly account for it. GraHaAmM W. MuRDOcH. 


Ir may be worth while to put on record that I have in my 
possession a male Scops-Owl (Scops giu), which was captured 
on a trawler about twenty-five miles off the coast ot 
Aberdeenshire in October, 1900. This bird was in an 
exhausted state, and although the plumage was in fair 
condition it was much faded. From this arises another 
question: What is the nautical limit within which a bird 
may be called “ British ”’ ? HK... R. Faron; 


I RECENTLY examined a fine example of the Honey-Buzzard 
which had been shot in North Shropshire, about the last day 
of September, 1908. It appears to be a male in its second 
year, and belongs to the dark-brown form. The last prior 
record in the county was in August, 1881, when three are 
said to have been seen near Ludlow, one of which was caught. 

H. E. Forrest. 


On the morning of May 14th last I was surprised to find a 
Grey Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius) fluttering on a path 
in my garden (near Sidmouth). The bird was_ hopelessly 

NOTES. 205 

crippled, having evidently fallen a victim to the heavy gale 
which had raged during the night. It proved to be a female 
in summer plumage, the tips of not more than five or six 
grey feathers showing among the chestnut of the lower breast. 
I find only two previous occurrences recorded from this 

county of this species in summer plumage. 


In 1896 my brother and I found a single pair of Snipe nesting 
in Kent (cf. Zoologist, 1897, p. 271), but since then I have 
no certain record of any having bred. However, on April 
21st of this year, | was walking with a friend along one of the 
many “levels” which connect up with Romney Marsh, and 
he told me that there had been several Snipe there for some 
time, and on that day we saw three or four pairs flying round 
and uttering their summer note, but we did not hear them 
‘“drumming.” I had no time on that day to search for a 
nest. On June 16th I was again in the same spot, and saw 
at least two pairs flying round and “ drumming,’ and from 
their behaviour they evidently had young about, but the 
state of the grass made a search for them impossible. My 
friend told me that the Snipe were “ drumming ”’ nearly every 
day between my two visits, so that I do not think that there 
can be any doubt that they had bred there. The “ levels ” 
were unusually wet all through the summer, which probably 
accounted for Snipe breeding there this year, and I have 
noticed before that these birds are particularly influenced 
by the state of a prospective breeding ground, a place which 
is wet and marshy one year and holding several pairs, will be 
perhaps too dry another year and the birds will be absent ; 
the obvious inference being that under one condition the 
food supply will suffice, and under the other it will not. 

Cs 6B, TichHuRst:. 


A PECTORAL SANDPIPER (J'ringa maculata) frequented a piece 
of marshy ground in Kent for several days during July, 1908. 
This bird was first noticed by the Duchess of Bedford and 
myself on July 14th. It was very shy, but by careful stalking 
I obtained a very good view of it through binoculars at about 
twenty yards’ distance. Owing to the somewhat worn 
appearance of the plumage I take it to have been an adult 
bird. Its flight was somewhat peculiar, and reminded one 


of the “‘ soaring ’”’ breeding flight of a male Redshank. Her 
Grace informs me that this bird was still in the same place 
on July 21st. 

On July 18th a Bartram’s Sandpiper (Bartramia longicau- 
data) was shot on Romney Marsh, and I examined it in the 
flesh two days later in Mr. Bristow’s shop at St. Leonards. 
It was an adult male in good condition, but in somewhat 
worn breeding plumage. On July 23rd Mr. Bristow informed 
me that on the previous day (the 22nd) he saw a bird on 
Pevensey Level which he believes to have been a Bartram’s 

The interesting note by the Duchess of Bedford on the 
Solitary Sandpiper in Kent, in the August number of 
British Brrps, coupled with the present records, seem to 
point to an immigration of American sandpipers to England. 
It would be interesting to know if any of your correspondents 
have noticed similar arrivals of American species in Britain. 

With the possible exception of the Scilly Islands, Sussex 
and Kent can claim to have produced more records of American 
waders than any other part of Great Britain. Possibly this 
is owing to the fact that there are more observers in these 
counties than elsewhere on the south coast. At any rate, 
there can be no doubt that the tendency of these waders is 
to follow a west to east line of flight. 



At Cley, between September Ist and 17th, 1908, I repeatedly 
saw a bird which I judged to be the Pectoral Sandpiper 
(Tringa maculata). The first time it got up it uttered the 
note which I remembered hearing at Aldeburgh, some years 
ago—a double chirp. I watched it once through glasses at 
about twenty yards, and thought I made out the pectoral 
band. It was often with Dunlins, and I could always pick 
it out by its superior size, but for many days it escaped the 
notice of the other frequenters of the estuary, mainly, I think, 
because it uttered its note very seldom, and the note when 
uttered was so low. It was the last wader I saw before I 

left the place. E. C. ARNOLD. 

I HAVE received some very interesting information from 
Mr. W. J. Clarke (the Scarborough wildfowler) with regard 
to the occurrence of the Levantine Shearwater (Puffinus 

NOTES. 207 

yelkouanus) off the Yorkshire coast. In his “‘ Monograph of the 
Petrels,’’ now in course of publication (p. 107), Dr. Godman 
gives the range of this species as practically confined to the 
Mediterranean, although its disposition to wander northwards 
occasionally was evidenced by the fact that it had been re- 
corded several times from the seas to the south and east of 
Great Britain. If we exclude the Yorkshire records, these 
occurrences appear to be as follow: Devon, three; Hamp- 
shire, one; Kent, one; Northumberland, one. The 
Yorkshire records up to the date of Mr. Clarke’s most recent 
observations are as follow :— 

1. 1877, autumn, near Redcar (T. H. Nelson, B. of Yorks, p. 760). 

2. 1880 (about), Flamborough Do. Do. 

3. 1890, Aug. 16th. Flamborough Do. Wo: 

4. 1898, Oct., Bridlington (R. B. Sharpe, Bull. B.O.C., X., p. 48). 

5. 1899, Feb. 4th, 2 adult, Scarborough (T. H. Nelson, B..of Yorks, 

ps 76). 

6. 1900, Sept. 13th, ? jun., Scarborough Do. Do. 

7. 1900, autumn, Scarborough Do. Do. 

8. 1902, Sept. Ist, ¢ adult, Scarborough Do. Do. 

9. 1904, Sept. 17th, 2, Scarborough (W. J. Clarke, Zool., 1905, p. 74). 
10. 1904, Sept. 27th, Scarborough Do. Do. 
11. 1907, Sept. 9th, 2, Scarborough (W. J. Clarke, an litt.). 
12. 1907, Sept. 19th, ?, Scarborough Do. 

13. 1907, Sept. 19th, ¢, Scarborough Do. 

14. 1907, Sept. 28th, °, Scarborough Do. 

15. 1908, Sept. 4th, 6, Scarborough Do. 

16. 1908, Sept. 21st, Scarborough Do. 

17. 1908, Sept. 24th, Scarborough Do. 

Mr. Clarke writes that out of twenty-two Shearwaters 
which he has had through his hands since 1890, twelve have 
been specimens of the Levantine species. With one excep- 
tion, all these were shot from a boat from four to eight 
miles from land, and most of them in the dusk of the 
evening. Mr. Clarke, who has himself obtained several of 
these birds, considers the Levantine to be the com- 
monest Shearwater off the coast of Yorkshire in the autumn, 
but in his experience it never approaches near the shore, and 
must be sought in the dusk. It looks on the wing, he says, 
distinctly larger and darker than the Manx Shearwater. 

It would certainly seem by Mr. Clarke’s valuable observations 
that the Levantine Shearwater migrates regularly northward 
in, autumn, and if this be the case not only is our knowledge 
of the distribution of the bird affected, but we have the 
anomaly of a species migrating north in autumn. Shearwaters 
are difficult birds to observe, and the Levantine has for many 
years been confused with the Manx Shearwater, but for those 
who like to repeat that there is nothing more to be learnt 
about British birds, and that there is nothing to be learnt from 


the occurrence of “ stragglers,” here is an occasion to think 
again. We hope that Mr. Clarke’s observations will induce 
some of our readers, who have opportunities for doing so, 
to go out in boats in the dusk of the evening and study 

With reference to the rosy tint of the breast referred to by 
Dr. N. F. Ticehurst (antea, p. 138) Mr. Clarke writes as 
follows :—‘‘I have examined a good many freshly-killed, 
as well as a couple of living, specimens, and none of them 
showed the slightest sign of any rosy tint on the breast.” 

ape eu te H. F. WITHERBY. 

galbula, which is a somewhat rare visitor so far north as 
Lincolnshire, flew against a telegraph wire “recently ” 
(? August, 1908) at Gainsborough (F. M. Burton, Nat., 1908, 
p. 399). 

SwaLtow’s Nest on A Lamp SHapE.—The nest of a 
Swallow on the shade of an electric-lamp is recorded and a 
photograph given, with a summary of previously-recorded 
curious nesting sites for this bird (Feld, 12, 1x., 1908, p. 514). 

LessER REDPOLL NESTING IN SussEx.—Mr. R. Morris 
reports that at least one pair of Linota rufescens bred again 
(cf. antea, Vol. I., p. 183) this year at Maresfield (Zool., 1908, 
p- 350). 

CuoucH IN LANCASHIRE.—Mr. E. Bell reports that a 
specimen of Pyrrhocorax graculus was shot near Wigan in the 
middle of September last. The Chough has previously 
occasionally wandered to Lancashire (Field, 26,1x., 1908, p.590). 

Hoopor IN Ross-SHIRE.—Colonel W. H. E. Murray records 
that an example of Upupa epops was caught at Geanies on 
September 9th. The Hoopoe is not often recorded from 
Scotland (Field, 19, 1x., 1908, p. 547). 

SAND-GROUSE IN Essex.—‘‘R. M.” reports that an 
example of Syrrhaptes paradoxus was shot on Great Mollands 
Farm, South Ockenden, on September Ist, 1908 (fzeld, 12, 
Ix., 1908, p. 514). 

RurF In co. CLARE.—A pair of Machetes pugnax, a rare 
casual visitor to Ireland, were shot on September 4th in co. 
Clare (H. V. Macnamara, Field, 12, 1x., 1908, p. 514). 

SABINE’s GuLL IN NorFrotk.—On September Ist, 1908, 
a Xema sabinit was shot on Breydon (F. A. Arnold, Zool., 
1908, p. 352). The bird was an adult in full summer plumage 
(J. H. Gurney, in litt.). 







You are urgently requested to answer as many of the questions detailed below as possible, and to 
the Schedule to the Editors of British Birds by March lst, 1909. It is hoped that the readers of the 
will thus co-operate and collect a large number of facts. The result of the enquiry will be announced in 
number, when all the observations have been collated and compared. 

CGAP DEIN NICETCTUIL EACLE CRS! i, eye here ce akicactccranesnecedincvesniSbvasttvtatcic on ocrasls? a EIEU ee eoet eRe 

Distret (state County) in which observations. were Madl............0isissisunsomsinsamaunsantelnemutiginnntetiieeiisinchnanss:osckaeqn aa 



1. Have they been plentiful ) 
this winter compared to 
other years, especially to 
last year ? 

2. When did the flocks arrive ? 

3. When did they depart ? 

searce or plentiful, and of 

4. Has the food supply been 
what has it consisted ? } 

1. Have you noticed either TuHRoat DisEAsn. 
disease, and at what time of 
year ? Ifnodisease has been 
met with, please note the fact. 


2. What percentage of indi- 
viduals has been affected ? 

3 Has the food supply been 
plentiful or scarce, and of 
what has it consisted at 
the time when the disease 
was noticed ? 

4. Have you any observa; 
tions relating to the course 
and length of either disease? 

5. Have you any evidence to | 
account for the transmis- 
sion of the diseases ? J 

‘isease in any other species 

6. If you have observed either 
“arward specimens. 



Pia) ISrl  BURDS,” 

ih # 
iim ~“WOi 







NAUMANN (J. F.). ‘‘ Naturgeschichte der Woge el Mitteleuropas.”’ Neubear- - C ? 

beitet yon Prof. R._Blasius, W. Blasius, R 
Carl R. Hennicke.  Jubildums-Prachtausgabe. 

uri und herausgegeben von | _ ; 

430. PLATES BEAUTIFULLY REPRODUCED IN COLOUR from drawings by. the «| 

wel one Bird Painter J. G. Keulemans, Bruno” Geisler, E. de Maes 
vand others. © 
12. Vols. Folio,, Drésden, 18961904. 
Bound in half cloth, £6°10s. net. Bound in half morocco, £8 8s. net. 

A copy of this Work'in Sern tcctly. pe: ae at Messrs. Hodgson’ 5 

WILLIAMS & NORGATE, 14, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C. 




Beautifully Illustrated with 345 Plates absolutely true 
| to Nature. 

es 8vo. 620 pages. 30s. net. 

A Concise Work on British Birds, accurate and. up to date, 
free as possible from technicalities, and simple and readable as 
1 the circumstances of the case permit. 3 

The si esa 167, Piccadilly. 


 Raturalists, hs 
And Manufacturers of CABINETS and APPARATUS for Entomology, Birds’ Fase mee 

~and Skins, and all Branches of Natural History. 

Speciality :—Obiects for Nature Study, Drawing Classes, &e. 

-BIRDS, MAMMALS, &c., PRESERVED and MOUNTED by FIRST-CLASS. hcg pees 54 if | 

All Books and Publications on. Natural History fappien 

36, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. (Five Doors from Charing Oras.) 

sCphelogue (162 pp.) gate free, 

Fe ag 


EPP ED bY oH. F.. WITHERBY,, F-.2Z.S.,, M-B.0.U. 
peo lED BY -W.. P.- PYCRAFT, A.LS., M.B.0.U. 

ContTENTS OF NUMBER 7, Vou. II. DECEMBER 1, 1908. 

On the Nesting of the Scaup-Duck in Scotland, by P. H. 
Behr, MA] MB., B.C., F)2.8., M.B:O:0. .: 

Some Early British Ornithologists and their Works, by 
W. H. Mullens, M.a., LL.M., M.B.o.u. V.—Robert Plot 
(1641—1696) : 

On the Song of the Wood- Warbler, by H. W: Mapleton, 
B.A., M.B.O.U. 

On the More Important Additions to our ’ ‘Knowledge of 
British Birds since 1899, by H. F. Witherby and N. F. 
Ticehurst. Part XV.—(continued from page 150) 

Pallas’s Grasshopper-Warbler (ZLocustella certhiola) in Ire- 
land, by R. M. Barrington 

Notes :—Barred Warbler in Lincolnshire (G. H. Caton Haigh). 
Goldcrests from East Coast Lighthouses (William 
Evans). Yellow-Browed Warbler in Lincolnshire (G. H. 
Caton Haigh). The East European Chiffchaff in the 
Isle of Wight (J. L. Bonhote). The Northern Race of 
the Willow-Wren in Great Britain (C. B. Ticehurst). 
Nesting Habits of the Marsh-Warbler (Norman Gilroy). 
Aquatic Warbler in Sussex (E. C. Arnold). Blue- 
Headed Wagtail in Norfolk (F.I. Richards). Autumn 
and Winter Singing of Buntings (H. G. Alexander, 
Col. H. Meyrick, C. I. Evans). Little Bunting in Ireland 
and Norfolk (R. M. Barrington and H. F. Witherby). 

» The Great Spotted Woodpecker as a Breeding Bird in 
Scotland (H. F. Witherby). Courting Performance of 
the Cuckoo (T. Thornton Mackeith). Little Owl in 
Warwickshire (A. G. Leigh). A Remarkable Variety 
of the Red-Legged Partridge in Essex (W. P. 
Pycraft). Grey Phalarope in Co. Wexford (R. C. 
Banks). Buff-breasted Sandpiper in Lincolnshire 
(G. H. Caton Haigh). Sabine’s Gull in Lincolnshire 
(G. H. Caton Haigh). Late Nests of the Great Crested 
and Little Grebes (W. Mackay Wood). Sooty Shear- 
waters in Sussex, Kent, and Yorkshire (W. Ruskin 
Butterfield and H. F. Witherby). Short Notes 

Reviews :—Report on the Immigrations of Summer Resi- 
dents in the Spring of 1907. A List of Irish Birds 

Page 209 





bare. tL. BAR, M-A..M.B., B.C., F:2.58., M.B.0.U. 

Prruaprs there is no more interesting fact in the history 
of the modern ornithology of these islands than the 


remarkable spread of the breeding area of many of the 
duck-tribe during recent years. 

The causes which made its allies, the Tufted Duck* 
and Shoveler,t common resident species in Scotland, 
have also affected the Scaup-Duck. There are several 
early records of its supposed breeding in Scotland. 
Under the head of ‘‘ Scaup Pochard ” Selby writes {: “a 
single female was shot by Sir William Jardine in a small 
loch between Loch Hope and Eriboll in 1834; she was 
attended by a young one, which unfortunately escaped 
among the reeds. This is the first instance of its breeding 
in Great Britain that I am aware of.” In June, 1868,§ 
Mr. J. A. Harvie-Brown shot an adult male Scaup in 
Sutherlandshire, ‘“‘ which had been frequenting the loch for 
some days; and from its unwillingness to leave the 
locality, though repeatedly disturbed and fired at, I am 
fully persuaded that the female was sitting on her eggs 
at no great distance. With my friend, Mr. W. Jesse, 
I also in June, 1867, obtained a laying of duck’s eggs, 
and though failing to identify them, they closely resembled 
eggs of this species from Lapland.”’ 

In 1880 the late Dr. A. C. Stark recorded a nest and 
eggs found on Loch Leven which he considered to be those 
of a Scaup.|| Full details have recently (antea, p. 132) 
been given by Mr. W. Evans, which show that these were 
no doubt the eggs of a Tufted Duck. 

The records cited above were not accepted by Professor 
Newton{] as authentic. 

The first authentic nest appears to have been discovered 
by Mr. Heatley Noble, and was recorded in the “ Ibis ” for 

* J. A. Harvie-Brown, ‘‘ Ann. §.N.H.,” 1896, pp, 3-22; “ Proc. Roy, 
Phys. Soc. Edin.,’’ Vol. XIII., pp. 144-160, 

+ id., “‘Fauna N.W. Highlands,” p. 232; “Ann. S.N.H.,”* 1902, 
p. 282. 

t ‘‘ Edin, New Philosph. Journa],’’ XX., p. 293, 1836; wide also 
Yarrell, 4th ed., Vol, IV.. p, 425. 

§ “Proc. N.H. Soc., Glasgow,” 1875, II., pp. 120 et 121. 
|| A. C. Stark, ‘Proc. Roy. Phys. Soc. Ed,,’’ 1881-83, VII., p. 203. 
q ‘Dict. Birds,” p, 815. 


1899,* and the “ Annals of Scottish Natural History.’’+ 
The nest was found in Speyside, and was placed in rushes 
on an island five feet from the water’s edge ; it contained 
three eggs when found. It was revisited in a week’s 
time, but the duck was not sitting. Mr. Noble got within 
ten feet of her and watched her for some time close to the 
nest. Two days after he watched her leave the nest, 
which contained nine eggs, and was deep, cup-shaped, and 
better made than most ducks’ nests. In a recent 
number of British Birpsft he has described the down 
and feathers taken from this nest. 

The Scaup-Duck has also been recorded§ as nesting 
in the islands south of the Sound of Harris. Mr. Harvie- 
Brown’s correspondent writes: “‘ They are numerous, 
and have bred for the last four years. Two pairs to my 
knowledge in 1897, 1898, and 1899, and three pairs in 
last season, 1900.” It was believed to have bred again 
in 1901, and in June, 1902, a young bird still in down, 
ten days old, was sent to Mr. Harvie-Brown by Guthrie, 
a keeper in these islands. 

Finally, the nest figured overleaf (Fig. 1) was discovered 
on a journey made to these islands with Mr. N. B. 
Kinnear for this express purpose.|| Professor Newton, 
with his critical acumen, would not at first accept the 
record because of the similarity of the eggs to those of the 
Tufted Duck, but did so after a careful comparison of 
the down and feathers with those taken from the nest 
found in 1899 by Mr. Heatley Noble.{ 

Mr. Kinnear and I spent a fortnight in June, 1906, 
searching innumerable lochs for signs of nesting Scaup- 

* H. Saunders, “‘Ibis,’’ 1899, p. 648; ‘Bull, B.O.C.,” VIIL., p. 5. 

+ J. A. Harvie-Brown, ‘“ Ann. §.N.H.,”’ 1899, p. 215. 

{t Britisu Brrps (Mag.), Vol. IT., p. 38. 

§ J. A, Harvie-Brown, ‘‘Ann, S.N.H.,” 1902, p. 211; vide also 
Guthrie, ‘“‘ Ann. 8.N.H.,”’ 1903, p. 76. 

| Kinnear, “Ann. S.N.H.,” 1907, p. 82. 

q *¢ Qotheca Wolleyana,”’ Vol. II., pp. 591 and 2. 


Ducks. For this purpose we had the owner’s kind 
permission, and the assistance of his keepers. 
On June 4th we discovered a solitary old male Scaup 

Fie. 1.—Nest of Scaup-Duck. June 11, 1906. (Photographed by 
P. H.. Bahr.) 

riding asleep on a peculiarly desolate and unpromising- 
looking loch. He was accompanied by a solitary Tufted 
drake, and when seen from a distance, even with the aid 
of glasses, they seemed, when asleep with head tucked 

Ba Met 

| Mil head tu t 

| i i 

| | ! | IAN 

Pea aN 
1h Sf 

(Drawn by P. H. Bahr.) 


Fie. 2.._Duck and Drake Scaup and Nesting Site. 


under wing, to be indistinguishable. In certain lights 
the grey feathers on the back of the male Scaup do not 
show up well, so that these birds can easily be missed 
when in company with Tufted Ducks. We waded to 
all the islands, but to no purpose. On the next day, 
June 5th, we were rewarded by the sight of two pairs, 
the drakes in each instance floating lazily about, fast 
asleep, with one leg cocked up in the air, as I have 
depicted in Fig. 2. No more evidence was forthcoming 
till the 9th, when I explored a loch famous for its trout 
and the variety of its bird-life. I was lying for no less 
than four hours at a stretch on a small islet some twenty 
feet in diameter, when I became aware that I was being 
watched by a pair of Scaups, every bit as carefully as I 
myself was watching some Black-headed Gulls. The duck 
appeared to be very anxious, and was swimming about, 
evidently on the quz vive, in the neighbourhood of another 
rocky islet, while her mate varied his vigil with an 
occasional “forty winks,” the temptation for which he 
seemed unable to resist. A search was made, and to my 
surprise I found that for four hours I had unconsciously 
been lying within six feet of a duck’s nest, to all appear- 
ance the very one I was in quest of. It was placed under 
a boulder, was lined with dark brown down, and contained 
nine olive-green eggs, which were not covered up. Owing 
to the trampled-down condition of the surrounding 
vegetation I had grave doubts as to whether the bird 
would return. Consequently I retired to another island 
some quarter-mile away and kept watch. Soon I saw 
the Scaup duck swim behind the island and disappear, 
so I resolved not to disturb her, but to return on the 
following Monday, the 11th, with Kinnear. 

When the day arrived we rowed up to the island with 
very anxious hearts. A brown duck flew off, scuttled 
along the water, and settled in a distant part of the loch, 
where she was soon joined by an undoubted Tufted 
drake!!! So a further search was made; on the next 
island, only some three hundred yards away, a Shoveler’s 


nest with eleven eggs was found. While I busied myself 
taking some photographs, Kinnear explored the remaining 
island of the series. This was also very small, had a rocky 
base, with large tufts of long grass on top. A brown 
duck was flushed off a nest, and settled on the water but 
twenty vards from the shore, and was watched for a 
quarter of an hour at a stretch through glasses. At 
the same time a drake Scaup was seen riding out on the 
loch at some distance from the island, and he, afterwards, 

Fie. 3.—The Duck Scaup coming off the Nest. (Drawn by P. H. Bahr.) 

in company with a drake Tufted, flew past me in my 
hiding-place. Kinnear refrained from investigating any 
further, but noted that the nest was situated in a deep 
hollow some nine inches below the level of the ground, and 
well guarded by large tufts of grass (Fig. 1) ; a trampled 
pathway led up from the edge of the water to the nest. 
An hour after he returned with me. On our approach 
the duck was seen leaving the nest, threading her way, 
with neck stretched in front of her, through the matted 
grass. She scuttled into the water (Fig. 3) and remained 
within thirty yards of the bank. The white patch and 


broad bill were plainly visible, and set aside all doubts 
of identification, so that we did not deem it necessary 
to take any further steps. She showed her uneasiness 
by giving vent to a sort of guttural grunt, splashed the 
water with her wings, and finally dived out of sight. 
The nest was almost invisible, so cleverly were the grasses 
pulled over the top. The eggs were covered with down, 

Fie, 4.—Nest of Tufted Duck in the same hollow as the Scaup’s nest in 
Fig. 1. May 28, 1907. (Photographed by P. H. Bahr.) 

so she had evidently heard us approaching. A quantity 
of blackish down, amongst which were greyish-white 
feathers, mixed with much fine grass, lined the nest. 
The eggs were nine in number, of an olive-green hue, 
and of the same size as those in the Tufted Duck’s nest 
we had just discovered. In the bottom of the nest we 
found a quantity of old eggshells, and it seems that this 
hollow had done service on several other occasions. The 


eggs were hard set, and the young were within three 
days of hatching. 

That same evening we saw five more Scaup-Ducks, 
two drakes and three ducks, on a sea-loch. Towards 
the end of the same month another nest was found by 
the keeper on the same loch. In 1907 I returned, and 
though I searched every likely situation, no trace of a 
Scaup was seen. The same hollow contained the nest of 
a Tufted Duck* (Fig. 4), from which the old bird was 
disturbed on three occasions and identified ; it contained 
nine eggs, and was to all intents and purposes exactly 
similar to the Scaup’s of the year before. There was also 
a Shoveler’s nest in exactly the same position. It is 
significant that the nests of these three species should 
be found on contiguous islands, where, not so many years 
ago, they were unknown. 

Though essentially a circumpolar species, the Scaup- 
Duck has been recorded as nesting in north Germany, 
once by Baldamus in Anhalt, and twice by Blasius in 
ponds near Brunswick.t 

* Cf. “Ann. Scot. Nat. Hist.,’’ 1907, p. 213. 

+ Rudolf Blasius, ‘‘ Naumann, Naturgesch. V. Mitteleurop.,’’ new ed., 
1896-1904, Vol. X., p. 153; Howard Saunders, ‘‘Man. B.B..’’ 1899, 
p. 449. 

( 218 ) 



W:: H- MULBLENS; --4:,. tea. oe 

V.—ROBERT PLOT (1641—1696) 


In the year 1661, Joshua Childrey (1623—1670), antiquary, 
schoolmaster, and divine, published in London a_ small 
duodecimo work entitled “ Britannia Baconia: / or, the 
Natural / Rarities / of / England, Scotland, & Wales.” This 
book, although of no particular value in itself, being merely 
a brief and somewhat imperfect compilation, was nevertheless 
destined to be of some considerable influence on the literature 
of natural history in this country. For, according to Wood’s 
‘““ Athenee Oxonienses’”’ (p. 339), it inspired Robert Plot 
(1641—1696), the first keeper of the Ashmolean Museum at 
Oxford, with the idea of writing the “ Natural History of 
Oxfordshire,” which appeared in 1677, and which was followed 
in 1686 by a “ Natural History of Staffordshire,” the work of 
the same author; who is said to have also contemplated 
similar histories of Middlesex and Kent. These two works of 
Robert Plot’s also proved in their turn to be the forerunners 
of a numerous series of county natural histories by different 

The full title of the “ Natural History of Oxfordshire ” 
is as follows :— 

“The / Natural History / of / Oxford-shire, / being an Essay 
toward the Natural History / of / England. / By R.P., LL.D. / 
[quotation from Arat. in Phzenom.] / [engraving] Printed at 
the Theater in Oxford, and are to be had there: / And in 
London at Mr. S. Millers, at the Star near the / West-end of 


St. Pauls Church-yard. 1677. / The price in sheets at the 
Press, nine shillings. / To Subscribers, eight shillings. 

1 Vol. folio. 

Collation: pp. 4, Imprimatur & Title. + pp. 8. un. + 
pp. 358. + pp. 12, Errata & Index. Map & XVI. Plates. 

A second edition of ‘‘ The Natural History of Oxfordshire ”’ 
appeared in 1705 “with large additions and corrections : 
also a short account of the Author, &c.”’ 

It cannot be said that Plot’s observations on the birds of 
Oxfordshire contain anything of much interest or value ; 
he was a somewhat credulous writer, and seems to have been 
a better authority on plants than on birds, and, indeed, is 
mentioned by the eminent John Ray, in the latter’s 
“Synopsis Methodica Stirpium  Britannicarum” as 
‘*Robertus Plot LL. Doctor, e cujus Historiis Naturalibus 
lectu sane dignissimis territorii tum Oxoniensis, tum Stafford- 
iensis, non pauca in Historiam & Synopsin hance nostram 
transtuli.”” It must not, however, be forgotten that Plot’s 
book was written at a time when but little was known of 
British birds, in fact, the ‘“ Natural History of Oxfordshire ”’ 
was published a year before the appearance of Willughby’s 
famous “ Ornithology’ (English translation).* 

Robert Plot dealt with the birds of Oxfordshire on 
pp. 175—180 of his book, under the head “‘ of Brutes.” It wil! 
here suffice to state that, having informed his readers that 
there was but little that he could mention in the way of new 
matter “‘ since the feathered kingdom has been so lately and 
so carefully surveyed by the learned and industrious Francis 
Willughby,” he proceeds to describe, amongst other birds, 
one “about the bigness of a sparrow, with a blue back, and 
a reddish breast, a wide mouth and a long bill... . from 
the noise that it makes commonly called the Wood-cracker,” 
although this bird, which was undoubtedly the Nuthatch, 

* The Latin edition of Willughby’s work entitled ‘‘ Ornithologizw Libri 
tres ’’ appeared in 1676. 
+ Cf. Swainson, p. 35. 


had been duly noticed in Willughby’s Latin edition of the 
** Ornithology ” (pp. 19 and 95). 

Plot’s other work, “The Natural History of Staffordshire,” 
was published in 1686, and is altogether a more important 
and far rarer book than the one above mentioned. Its full 
title is as follows :— 

The / Natural History / of Stafford-shire / by / Robert Plot, 
LL.D. / Keeper of the / Ashmolean Museum / and / Professor _ 
of Chymistry / in the / University / of / Oxford. / Ye shall 
describe the Land, and bring the Description hither to me. 
Joshua 8. v. 6. / [Engraving] Oxford / Printed at the 
Theater, Anno M. DC. LXX XVI. 

1 Vol. folio. 

Collation: pp. 16 un. + pp. 450 + pp. 14, Index, 
** Proposalls of the Author,” and list of Subscribers. Map, 
XXXVII. Plates, and extra Plate of “Armes omitted.” 
(This last plate is very seldom found in the original state.) 

Birds are treated of in Chapter VII., pp. 228—236, and 
though the observations are somewhat fuller than in the same 
author’s “‘ Natural History of Oxfordshire,’ their principal 
interest lies in the curious account of the nesting of the Pewit 
(i.e., the Black-headed Gull, Larus ridibundus). A small 
portion of this account is given in the fourth edition of 
Yarrell’s “‘ British Birds” (Vol. III., p. 599).* But as it is 
of considerable interest we here give it in full, together with a 
facsimile of the original plate, showing the taking of the young 

‘“‘ But the strangest whole-footed water fowle that frequents 
this county is the Larus Cinereus Ornithologi, the Larus 
Cinerus tertius Aldrovandi, and the Cepphus of Gesner and 
Turner ; in some Counties called the black-Cap, in others the 
Sea or Mire-Crow, here the Pewit; which being of the 
migratory kind, come annually to certain pooles in the Estate 
of the right Worshipfull Sr. Charles Skrymsher Knight to 

* The quotation in ‘“‘ Yarrell’’ is by no means word perfect; it did 
not appear in the first three editions of that work. 

{+ Plot uses the spelling, Pewit or Pewet, indifferently. 

-e SOU Ud 5 eR ar fae ae) ol 

Aas ek ee ee oF OTe e 
00% a ee ee Cs 
BEd cab Pap ity 4) Nhe 
r i, a Me o.* ' “s _ 
a ot i We iava ty 


‘ yews, 
gi hii z : 

. ’ : 
Oe yee ts ae 
4 i 
es PAi 
i @ ; 

h Cy ts nd 
one al 4 
Pen, “oe icf # 


i i~i~i_i hnh»™]™]>"’»=™>»Ba=™— amEpEpEhmhhx™L__ iii ™ {j pABpE=S S|" 

the Pewets annuall 
Teftimony of hes 
My © es tha: 


paeeee > 

‘ GS a it ~ 3 
Ty a ae 

———= ee 

— = 

"Fi 7, 
) boy yi 
— weal 

“Vj YY iid, ie 

“li fy als f 

rsh iy 


[BRITISH BIRDS, Vol. I1., Pl. 5.) 


build and breed, and to no other estate in or neer the County, 
but of this Family, to which they have belong’d ultra hominum 
memoriam, and never moved from it, though they have 
changed their station often. They anciently came to the old 
Pewit poole above mentioned, [chap. 6. §§. 36, 40, 42] about 
4a mile 8.W. of Norbury Church, but it being their strange 
quality (as the whole Family will tell you, to whom I refer 
the Reader for the following relation) to be disturb’d and 
remove upon the death of the head of it, as they did with-in 
memory, upon the death of James Skrymsher, Esq., to Offley- 
Moss near Woods-Eves, which Moss though containing two 
gentlemans land, yet (which is very remarkable) the Pewits 
did discern betwixt the one and the other, and build only on 
the land of the next heir John Skrymsher, Esq., so wholy 
are they addicted to this family. At which Moss they 
continued about three years, and then removed to the old 
pewit poole again, where they continued to the death of the 
said John Skrymsher, Esq.; which happening on the Eve to 
our Lady-day, the very time when they are laying their Eggs, 
yet so concerned were they at this gentleman’s death, that 
notwithstanding this tye of the Law of Nature, which has 
ever been held to be universal and perpetual, they !eft their nest 
and Eggs; and though.they made some attempts of laying 
again at Offley-Moss, yet they were still so disturbed that they 
bred not at all that year. The next year after they went to 
Aqualat, to another Gentleman’s Estate of the same family 
(where though tempted to stay with all the care imaginable) 
yet continued there but two years, and then returned again 
to another poole of the next heir of John Skrymsher deceased, 
called Shebben poole in the parish of high Offley where they 
continue to this day, and seem to be the propriety as I may say 
(though a wild-fowle) of the right worshipfull Sr. Charles 
Skrymsher Knight, their present Lord and master. But being 
of the migratory kind their first appearance is not till about 
the latter end of February and then in number scare above 
six, which come as it were as harbingers to the rest, to see 
whether the Hasts or Islands in the pooles (upon which they 
build their neasts) be prepared for them; but these never so 
much as lighten, but fly over the poole scarce staying an hour : 
about the sixth of March following, there comes a pretty 
considerable flight, of a hundred or more, and then they alight 
on the hasts, and stay all day, but are gon again at night. 
About our Lady-Day, or sooner in a forward Spring, they come 
to stay for good, otherwise not till the beginning of April, 
when they build their nests, which they make not of sticks, 
but heath and rushes, making them but shallow, and laying 


generally but 4 eggs, 3 and 5 more rarely, which are about the 
bignes of a small Hen-egg. The Hasts or Islands are prepared 
for them between Michaelmass and Christmass, by cutting down 
the reeds and rushes and putting them aside in the nooks and 
corners of the hasts, and in the valleys to make them level ; 
for should they be permitted to rot on the Islands, the Pewits 
would not endure them. 

‘“‘ After three weeks sitting the young ones are hatch’t, 
and about a month after are almost ready to flye, which 
usually happens on the third of June, when the Proprietor 
of the poole orders them to be driven and catch’d, the Gentry 
comeing in from all parts to see the sport ; the manner thus. 
They pitch a Rabbit-net on the bank-side, in the most con- 
venient place over against the hasts, the Net in the middle 
being about ten yards from the side but close at the ends in 
the manner of a bow; then six or seven men wade into the 
poole beyond the Pewits, over against the Net, with long 
staves and drive them from the hasts, whence they all swim 
to the bank side, and landing run like Lapwings into the Net, 
where people standing ready, take them up, and put them into 
two penns made within the bow of the Net, which are built 
round, about 3 yards Diameter, and a yard high or somewhat 
better, with small stakes driven into the ground in a circle, 
and interwoven with broom and other raddles, as in Tab. 19, 
at the bottom whereof is represented in Sculpture, the poole, 
and whole method of taking these Pewits ; and Norbury Manor 
at the top, the seat of the Proprietor, a most generous 
Encourager of this work. In which manner they have taken 
off them in one morning 50 dozens at a driving, which at 5s. 
per dozen (the ancient price of them) comes to twelve pounds 
ten shillings: but at several drifts that have been anciently 
made in the same morning, there have been as many taken as 
have been sold for thirty pounds, so that some years the profit 
of them has amounted to fifty or three score pounds, besides 
what the generous Proprietor usually presents his Relations, 
and the Nobility and Gentry of the County withall, which he 
constantly does in a plentifull manner, sending them to their 
houses in Crates alive, so that feeding them with livers, and 
other entrals of beasts, they may kill them at what distance 
of time they please, according as occasions present themselves, 
they being accounted a good dish at the most plentiful tables. 
But they commonly appoint 3 days of driving them, within 
fourteen days or thereabout, of the second or third of June ; 
which while they are doing, some have observed a certain old 
one that seems to be somewhat more concerned than the 
rest, being clamorous, and striking down upon the very heads of 


the Men ; which has given ground of suspicion that they have 
some Government amongst them, and that this is their Prince, 
that is so much concern’d for its Subjects. And ’tis further 
observed that when there is great plenty of them, the Lent- 
Corn of the Country is so much the better, and so the Corn- 
pastures too, by reason they pick up all the worms, and the 
Fern-flyes, which though bred in the Fern, yet nip and feed 
on’ the young corn and grass, and hinder their growth.”’ 
Robert Plot, as we are informed in “a short account of the 
Author” appended to the Second Edition of the ‘‘ Natural 


History of Oxfordshire,’ was the son of Captain Robert Plot, 
of Borden in Kent, and was born in 1641 at Sutton-Barn 
in the said parish. He was educated at Magdalene Hall in 
the University of Oxford, and afterwards at University College 
there. In the year 1683 he was appointed first Keeper of 
the Ashmolean Museum, and about the same time was made 
Professor of Chemistry to the University. In 1694 he was 
nominated Mowbray Herald, by Henry, Duke of Norfolk, 
and died at his house, Sutton-Barn, April 30th, 1696. A 
monument to his memory stands in the Parish Church at 

In the year 1700* Charles Leigh (1662—1701), ‘‘ Doctor of 
Physick,” published in imitation of Plot’s works a worthless 
‘Natural History of Lancashire, Cheshire, and the Peak in 
Derbyshire,” the full title of the book being as follows :— 

The / Natural History of / Lancashire, Cheshire, / and the / 
Peak, / in Derbyshire: / with an / Account / of the / British, 
Pheenician, Armenian, Gr. and Rom. Antiquities / in those / 
Parts. / By Charles Leigh, / Doctor of Physick. / Oxford : / 
Printed for the Author, and to be had at Mr. George West’s,/ 
and Mr. Henry Clement’s, Booksellers there: Mr. Edward 
Evet’s / at the Green-Dragon, in St. Paul’s Church-yard ; 
and Mr. John / Nicholson, at the King’s Arms in Little-Britain, 
London. MDCC. 

1 Vol. folio. 

* In 1684 appeared the “Scotia illustrata sive Prodomus Historie 
Naturalis,” Edinburgh, 1 vol. folio, of Robert Sibald (1641—1722) 
which contained some short notes on the birds of Scotland. 


Collation: pp. 20 un. + pp. 4. + pp. 2 un. + pp. 196. 
(Book IT.) pp. 99. (Book III.) pp. 112 + pp. 33 Index. Portrait, 
Map & XXIV. Plates. (Numerous mistakes in pagination.) 

Birds are treated of, pp. 157—164, Book I., but Leigh’s 
ornithological observations are useless and _ trivial, though 
he could not well complain of any lack of material, since he 
informs us on p. 157 that “These Counties afford us great 
variety of Birds, and in some places, even, clog the Inhabitants 
with their Plenty.” 

County Natural Histories now began to appear at frequent 
intervals, and contained more or less useful notices of the local 
birds, but it is here only possible to mention some of the rarer 
or more important of them in their chronological order :— 

1709. Robinson (Thomas)— 

An / Essay / towards a / Natural History / of / Westmoreland 
/ and / Cumberland. /... . By Tho. Robinson, Rector of ; 
Ousby in Cumberland. / London . . . . 1709. 

1 Vol. 8vo. (Contains some worthless remarks on birds, 
pp. 64—68, and pp. 94—98 of the “ Moral Conclusions,” which 
form the latter part of the work.) 

1712. Morton (John)— 

The / Natural History / of / Northamptonshire: /... . by 
John Morton, M.A., / Rector of Oxenden in the same County 
25014: A), MAG OnL en Oe 

1 Vol. folio. (Birds, pp. 423—438.) 
1758. Borlase (William)— 

The / Natural History / of / Cornwall. /.... By Wiliam 
Borlase, A.M.F.R.S. / Rector of Ludgvan, and Author of the 
Antiquities of Cornwall. / Oxford .... MDCCLVIII. 

1 Vol. folio. (Birds, pp. 242—248, the information being 
chiefly derived from Carew’s Survey of Cornwall, 1602.) 

1769. Wallis (John)— 

The / Natural History / and / Antiquities / of Northumber- 
land: / and so much of the County of / Durham / as lies 


between the Rivers Tyne and Tweed : joa. by ‘John 
Wallis, A.M. / London MDCCLXIX. 

2 Vols. 4to. (Birds, pp. 309—346, a considerable account.) 

1772. Rutty (John)— 

An / Essay / towards a / Natural History / of the / County 
of Dublin, /. . .. By John Rutty, M.D. /... . 1772. 

2 Vols. 8vo. (Birds, Vol. I., pp. 295—343, and IV. plates 
of birds.) 

1789. Pilkington (James)— 

A / view / of / the / Present State / of / Derbyshire; /... . 
by James Pilkington. /.... London. / MDCCLXXXIX. 

2 Vols. 8vo. (Birds, Vol. I., pp. 480—496.) 

We will conclude our short list with the earliest of the local 
ornithologies, 7.e. :— 

1809. Tucker (Andrew)— 

Ornithologia Danmoniensis ; / or, / an history of the habits 
and Economy / of / Devonshire Birds. / Embellished with 
coloured plates, engraven from accurate and / Beautiful 
Drawings from Nature: /.... By Andrew G. C. Tucker. / 
.... London: / Printed for the Author, and published 
by T. Cadell and / W. Davies, Strand. / 1809. 

1 Vol. 4to. 

“An ambitious work of which not even the whole of the 
somewhat turgid Introduction was published, but the two 
parts printed show the author to have been a physiologist, 
anatomist and outdoor-observer far beyond most men of his 
time” (cf. Newton’s Dictionary of Birds; introduction, 
p. 45). 

( 226 ) 



In May last, while availing myself of a very good oppor- 
tunity of observing a Wood-Warbler in full song my 
attention was called to the fact that this bird has two 
distinct songs. As I do not remember to have seen this 
fact recorded in works on British birds, I thought it 
possible that a few notes on the subject might prove 
of interest. Of course, everyone knows that in the songs 
of accomplished vocalists, such as the Nightingale’ and 
the Song-Thrush, many distinct phrases are utilized in a 
variety of combinations, but in the case of the Wood- 
Warbler there are two distinct songs, which bear no 
resemblance to each other, either in tone or phrasing, 
and which, when the bird is singing well, are very 
rarely mixed. The first of these is the ordinary song, 
which needs no description here. 

The second song, which is much rarer than the first, 
varies considerably in different individuals as regards 
the number of syllables, though the tone is constant. 
In the case of the first bird I had under observation, on 
May 16th, it consisted of from 9-12 syllables—the 
average number in this case being 10. It is sweet, and 
rather plaintive in tone, falling gradually from F sharp 
to E flat, or possibly D. [This interval I am not certain 
about, as I verified it on the pianoforte from memory 
only.] In character it resembles to a certain extent 
the ecstatic ‘‘ tail-end ”’ of the full song of the Tree-Pipit. 
The last and lowest note of this song seems to be the 
same as that used as a call-note when the young are 
fledged and flying about in family parties. 

On May 17th I came across another Wood-Warbler, 
and. timed the bird, roughly, for ten minutes, during which 
it sang No. 1—the ordinary song—over fifty times, and 
No. 2 only about five times. Neither on this, nor on the 
previous occasion, did I hear these two songs mixed, 
though once or twice the bird would utter three notes of 


the prelude of its ordinary song, and then stop, and start 
afresh on the second. 

On May 3lst I listened to another bird. This individual 
differed from the two preceding ones to a certain extent, 
as it mixed up the two songs occasionally. It was not 
in very full voice. During the time I stood listening it 
never sang song No. 2 properly. Several times it sang four 
syllables of this song, ending up with three notes of the 
prelude of No. 1, and once, without a break, it began 
with these four syllables, and ended up with No. 1 in full. 
But I failed to hear it sing more than four syllables of 

No. 2 at any time. 

On June 7th I found a bird singing regularly, but not 
very fully. This one very seldom made use of song No. 2. 
Once it started on it and ran into the regular song (No. 1) 
without a break. I never heard it sing more than four 
syllables of song No. 2. 

On June 19th I found a fifth bird in full song, and 
watched it carefully for 45 minutes, during which time 
it never moved far away, and never ceased singing. My 
notes on this occasion corroborated those I took in the 
first two cases. This bird differed slightly in one respect, 
as two or three times it sung the prelude to song No. 1 
without the trill. In this individual the number of 
syllables in song No. 2 varied from 7—11—the average 
number being 8—and it mixed the two songs three times 
during the period that I had it under observation. 

It would seem that when the Wood-Warbler is singing 
well, the number of syllables in its second song varies 
from 7-12. As regards the musical interval of this song, 
F sharp to E flat would represent a minor third; and I 
think that this interval in the song is approximately 
correct, though I cannot boast a musician’s trained ear. 
When we consider that the double call of the Cuckoo 

_ constitutes an interval of a minor third, and that the 
_ ten-syllabled song of the Wood-Warbler (which is gradually 
falling in tone all through) represents an interval little, 
i if at all, larger, it is easy to see that our diatonic scale 
1s not well suited for gauging the musical intervals of the 
songs of birds. 

(228 4 


Part XV. 
(Continued from page 150.) 
LAPWING Vanellus vulgaris Bechst. 8S. page 555. 

The wings of the two sexes have been shown by Mr. F. W. 
Frohawk to be different. Those of the male are rounder 
and broader than those of the female, a characteristic which 
may be distinguished in flight. The formule of the primaries 
are as follows :— 

& ste" 7th: 2 Ist = 4th. 
2nd and 4th, equal. 2nd and 3rd, equal and longest. 
3rd, longest. 
7th, 8th, and 9th, 14 in. longer than in 9. 

“In the male the primaries are long and broad, giving a 
decidedly curved outline, while the secondaries, being con- 
siderably shorter, add greatly to the rounded appearance of 
the wing.” Mr. Frohawk also points out that the bill of the 
female is longer and her crest shorter than in the male (F. W. 
Frohawk, Ibis, 1904, pp. 446-451, figs. 5-10). 

AVOCET Recurvirostra avocetta L. 8S. page 561. 

CoRNWALL.—One was shot in the Cober Valley, Helston, 
on April 21st, 1900—* the only specimen recorded from Corn- 
wall during the past twenty-seven years” (J. Clark, Zool., 
1907, p. 286). 

NorFoLK AND KEntT.—They still visit these counties with 
fair regularity every year in May or June. 

Essex.—An immature female was shot at Leigh-on-the- 
Sea in November, 1908, and another was shot near the same 
place in August, 1901 (F. Cooper, Field, 1908, p. 888.) 

NortH WaA.LES.—One seen and identified by Capt. Bailey — 
on a marsh near Llanelltyd in 1901 (H. E. Forrest, Vert. 
F. N. Wales, p. 338). 

BLACK-WINGED STILT AHimantopus candidus Bonn. 
S. page 563. 
CHESHIRE.—An adult male was obtained on the Mersey 
at Latchford, but the date is unknown (Coward and Oldham, 
B. of Cheshire, p. 207). 


YORKSHIRE.—A third specimen for the county was shot 
at Kilnsea in Holderness “‘many years ago” (T. Nelson, 
iB. of Yorks..sp: 591). 

NorFotk.—Two were on the Broads on May 28th, 1905, 
and one on April 29th, 1906 (J. H. Gurney, Zool., 1906, p. 127, 
and. 1907, jp. 127). 

GREY PHALAROPE Phalaropus fulicarius (L.). 
S. page 565. 

ScoTLanD.—One or two have occurred almost every year 
since 1899, and the following have been recorded from the 
Outer Hebrides :—Two on November 3rd, 1901, at Island Glass 
(Ann. S.N.H., 1902, p. 193); and one at the Flannans on 
May 18th, and two on May 19th, 1906 (é.c., 1907, p. 201). 
Sule-Skerry :—one on February 15th, 1903 (é.c., 1904, p. 214). 

IRELAND.—A male was shot on September 28th, 1899, 
near Logan, co. Armagh (A. W. Marsden, Zool., 1899, p. 477). 

RED-NECKED PHALAROPE Phalaropus hyperboreus (L.). 
S. page 567. 

NortH WaALEs.—One was obtained in Merioneth, and one 
was watched in Anglesea in 1902 (H. E. Forrest, Vert. F. N. 
Wales, p. 340). 

IRELAND.—Breeding colony in the west discovered (cf. 
Irish Nat., 1903, pp. 41 and 96; Zool., 1903, p. 116; B. B., 
Wol..f., p..174). 

WOODCOCK Scolopax rusticula L. 8. page 569. 
ScotLaANpD.—Unusual numbers nesting in 1902, 1904, and 
1908 (cf. J. A. Harvie-Brown, Ann. S.N.H., 1904, pp. 191 
and 245, and 1908, p. 142). 
Weight—Records of weights up to 17 oz., a few of 16 oz., 
and many of 15 to 154 oz., in Shetland (R. C. Haldane, Ann. 
S.VH., 1906, p. 54). 

GREAT SNIPE Gallinago major (J. F. Gm.) 8. page 571. 

ScoTLanp.—1901.—Sept. 25th, two Orkney; Sept. 26th, 
one Shetland; autumn, one Castle Douglas (Ann. S.N.H., 
1902, p. 54). [One Shetland Sept. 20th, 1904 (é.c., 1905, 
p. 54)]. 1905—One Aberdeen Sept. 5th (Zool., 1905, p. 466). 
One Orkney Sept. 12th (Ann. S.N.H., 1906, p. 54). 1906— 
One Fair Isle Sept. 5th (¢.c., 1907, p. 79). 

IRELAND.—Mr. R. J. Ussher gives thirteen records (List of 
Irish B., p. 43.). 

W eight.—Average of forty-three adult birds shot in August 
and September, 7 oz. 5 drs. Three were over 9 oz., and 
fifteen over 8 oz., the largest was 1 dram short of 11 oz. 
ea-8.T., Preld, 13, v., 99). 

( 230 ) 


AN immature example of Pallas’s Grasshopper-Warbler 
was picked up dead at the Rockabill Lighthouse (five 

Pallas’s Grasshopper-Warbler, picked up dead at the Rockabill 
Lighthouse (Co. Dublin), on September 28, 1908. 

miles off the coast of co. Dublin) on September 28th, 1908, 
by the assistant light-keeper—Martin Kennedy. ‘This is 
the first recorded occurrence of this bird in the British 
Isles, and so far as I can ascertain, it has only once before 
been obtained in Europe, viz., by the late Heinrich 
Gatke, in Heligoland, where a young bird was caught 


at the lighthouse lantern on the night of August 12th— 
13th, 1856. In 1858, Blasius, when on a visit to this 
island, examined the specimen, and called it “‘ the jewel ”’ 
of Gatke’s collection (cf. H. Gatke, Heligoland, Eng. 
Ed., pp. 310 and 312). The breeding range of this bird 
appears to extend over Siberia, east of the Yenesei, to 
the Pacific, and southwards to the Altai Mountains and 
the Amur River, while it occurs in China on passage, and 
winters in Burma, India, and the Malay Archipelago. 
In habits it seems to be much the same as our Grasshopper- 
Warbler, and in appearance it is somewhat similar. A 
friend said it resembled a cross between a Hedge-Sparrow 
and a Grasshopper-Warbler, but it is markedly larger than 
the latter bird, and is of a reddish-brown on the upper 
side, the feathers being striped with black, while the tail- 
feathers are tipped with greyish-white. The bird was in 
plump condition, and was no: “wind-driven,” half-starved, 
specimen. Judging by lighthouse specimens it is probable 
that many inconspicuous birds visit our shores more 
frequently than other records would lead us to suppose. 
In this case, however, the rarity of the species in Europe 
scarcely suggests this possibility. 

The specimen was exhibited on my behalf by Mr. W. 
R. Ogilvie-Grant at the meeting of the British Ornith- 
ologists’ Club held on October 21st last, and it was 
shown by me at the scientific meeting of the Royal 
Dublin Society on November 24th. Mr. Pycraft dissected 
_ the body and it proved to be a male. 


I rinp I have omitted to place on record the occurrence of 
the Barred Warbler (Sylvia nisoria) in Lincolnshire in 1905. 
On September 4th in that year I shot an immature specimen 
of this species in a hedge near the coast at North Cotes. It 
is a shy and wild bird, and takes wing more readily than any 
of the other warblers. 

G. H. Caton Haren. 

[This example is referred to in Vol. I., p. 56, of this Magazine, 
but as only the bare record was given by Mr. Gurney in the 
** Zoologist,’’ from which the occurrence was taken, we are 
very glad to publish the details above.—EDs. | 


Dr. Harrert regards the British-bred Goldcrest as sub- 
specifically distinct from the typical Regulus regulus of 
Continental Europe, and has described it under the name of 
Regulus requlus anglorum (cf. Vol. I., p. 218). This insular 
race he regards as resident (/.c., p. 209). The North European 
form, he remarks, frequently crosses over to Great Britain 
in flocks in autumn and winter (l.c., p. 218). 

If the above views be correct, Goldcrests occurring at 
lighthouses on our east coast during the migration seasons 
ought to belong to the Continental form and be recognisable 
as such. To test this, I recently examined a number of 
specimens obtained at the Isle of May and Barnsness light- 
houses, at the mouth of the Firth of Forth, and could see no 
difference between them and examples from inland woods 
—in the north as well as in the south of Scotland—where 
the species breeds commonly, and is present all the year round. 
But to make sure I have submitted my specimens to Dr. 
Hartert for comparison with the series in the Tring Museum, 
and he writes me that he is unable to distinguish any of them 
from the British race; “they are,’ he repeats, “‘ exactly like 
British birds, their colour being darker than in Continental 
specimens.” The specimens submitted included ten from 
the lighthouses as under :— 

6, Isle of May, September 17th, 1885; taken by myself 
at the lantern, with other migrants, about 1l pm. A good 
many were seen in the course of the night. 

NOTES. 233, 

2, Isle of May, September 4th, 1908. (For this and sub- 
sequent specimens from the May, I am indebted to Mr. Ross, 
superintendent of the lighthouse.) 

¢ , Barnsness, night of October 1st, 1908 ; along with Larks, 
Starlings, etc. (For the Barnsness specimens I have to thank 
the lighthouse keepers and Mr. Pow.) 

3 oo and one @, Isle of May, night of October 7th. 

?, Barnsness, night of October 7th; several with other 

¢ and 2, Isleof May, night of October 31st, during a great 
rush of migrants, including besides Goldcrests, Redwings 
(very many), Fieldfares, Ring-Ousels, Owls, Woodcock, ete. 

Thus it would seem either that many of our British Goldcrests - 
do migrate, or that there are in some part of North Europe 
birds which in autumn plumage are indistinguishable from 
them. I have long regarded our British Goldcrests as in the 
main resident, and the flocks observed at our light stations 
in October as coming from Scandinavia or the adjacent parts 
of the continent ; and I still incline to this view. The subject, 
however, needs further investigation. An examination of 
specimens from stations in Orkney and Shetland, for instance, 
would be most interesting. 


[In September, 1905, I obtained two examples of un- 
doubtedly migrating Goldcrests in Norfolk which clearly 
belong to the typical and not to the English race. There is 
much to be learnt regarding migration in conjunction with the 
study of local races.—H. F. W.] 


On October 19th last I found a Yellow-browed Warbler 
_(Phylloscopus superciliosus) dead in a hedge near the sea-bank 
at North Cotes. There was a great migration of birds in 
progress at the time. There were Song-Thrushes in thousands, 
hundreds of Robins and Goldcrests, and in less numbers Red- 
- wings, Blackbirds, Ring-Ousels, Grey Crows, Chaffinches, 
Greenfinches, and Twites, with a few Bramblings, Wheatears, 
Rock-Pipits, Woodecocks, Merlins, and Black Redstarts. 
This is the second appearance of the Yellow-browed Warbler 
in the county. G. H. Caron Haicu. 


On April 15th, 1907, I received from the lighthouse at 

_Niton, Isle of Wight, a single example of Phylloscopus 


collybita abietina (Nilss.)—the Eastern form of our Chiffchaff. 
According to Dr. Hartert, this form breeds in Scandinavia, 
East Prussia, Austria, and Hungary, southwards to Bosnia 
and Montenegro, and in Russia, south of 65° N. It winters 
in Greece, Asia Minor, and North-East and East Africa, but 
its migration route and western boundary are still uncertain. 
It may be distinguished from our native bird by its slightly 
larger size, paler coloration, and longer wing measurements, 
which are about 2.5 inches in the male, and 2.25 inches in the 
female. This is the first recorded example from this country, 
but it seems likely that solitary individuals may occur yearly 
in this country on migration, as it would be impossible to 
distinguish them from the common Chiffchaff unless they were 

J. L. BoNnHOTE. 


Dvurine the last two years, whilst examining birds and wings 
sent from the lighthouses and lightships on the south coast, 
I was struck by the fact that there frequently occurred a 
Willow-Wren which, though like our breeding Willow-Wrens 
superficially, was easily distinguishable from them. On 
going into the matter more carefully I found that these birds 
in spring differed from ours in the following characters :— 

1. The colour of the dorsal parts has a greyish instead of a 
yellowish green tint, thus giving the bird a paler appearance. 

2. Underparts almost entirely without the yellow which 
is seen on our birds in spring plumage, and much paler. | 

3. The superciliary stripe usually quite white, and not 

Further, I found that these birds do not begin to arrive 
in the south of England before the end of April, and that the 
majority pass through during the first two weeks of May— 
at a time when our own birds are busy breeding. 

The race to which these birds evidently belong has been 
recognised by Dr. Hartert, and I think quite rightly, under the 
name of Phylloscopus trochilus eversmanni (Bonaparte) [in 
no way to be confounded with Eversman’s Warbler], and 
the distribution which he gives (Die Vég. pal. Faun., p. 509) 
is :—the breeding range begins in north Russia, east of Timan 
Hills, and extends south to the eastern parts of Perm and 
Orenburg ; eastward it is the breeding form of the Ob and 
Yenesei, and extends to the mouths of the Lena and Kolyma; 
passing through Roumania and Egypt on migration, it winters 
in South Africa. I have examined about a dozen examples 

NOTES. 235 

obtained in Hampshire and Sussex, and half-a-dozen from 
the Shetlands, all obtained on the spring migration. Thus 
it seems certain that this form of the Willow-Wren occurs 
regularly on migration through England and Scotland, and 
since I have examples from Finmarken and have seen others 
from north Norway obtained in the breeding season, it seems 
that the breeding range must be extended further westward 
than Dr. Hartert states. 

That this subspecies occurs also on the return migration 
in autumn is probable, but I know no certain way of 
differentiating them from our own birds in autumn plumage. 
It is not surprising that it should have hitherto been over- 
looked in Great Britain, since it arrives when the leaf is out 
and when our birds are nesting, and consequently at a time 
when few examples are obtainable for examination. 

This is the species described by H. Seebohm as Phylloscopus 
gaetker (Ibis, 1877, p. 92). 

Six specimens were shown by me at the October meeting 
of the British Ornithologists’ Club, all obtained from 
Hampshire. C. B. TicEHURST. 


I Am interested in Mr. Bunyard’s notes on the Marsh-Warbler 
in the November issue. I have had considerable experience 
with this species during the last three years in Gloucestershire. 
—and as regards the nest, its situation and construction, my 
observations confirm those of Mr. Bunyard. The nests 
I have seen have been in willow-herb, wormwood, figwort, 
meadow-sweet, and nettles, and the clutch generally consists 
of five eggs, occasionally only four. The 18th to 24th June 
I have found to be the best average date for fresh eggs. 

I have, however, failed to notice the “‘ extreme shyness ”’ 
commented on by Mr. Bunyard. The sitting birds almost 
invariably allowed of close observation, and when building 
or feeding young were quite unusually careless. The song 
is freely uttered throughout the day, although certainly 
more so in the late afternoon, and is extraordinarily rich and 
melodious. The singing bird generally perches near the top 
of a low bush, frequently on the branch of a willow-tree, and 
seldom amongst the undergrowth, like the Reed-Warbler. 

The eggs are certainly larger than Continental specimens, 
and present two distinct types, viz.: (1) the usual and well- 
known one; (2) that in which the markings are uniformly 
brown. Neither type can possibly be mistaken for eggs of 
any other British species. NorRMAN GILROY. 



On October 7th last I had the good fortune to shoot an 
Aquatic Warbler (Acrocephalus aquaticus) on the Eastbourne 
Crumbles. I have for the last fifteen years examined every 
Sedge-Warbler I have seen in the hopes of finding an Aquatic. 

Aquatic Warbler, Eastbourne, Sussex, October 7, 1908. 
(Drawn by E. C. Arnold.) 

This bird put its head out of a single tamarisk bush on the 
shingle, and I at once felt sure it was a rarity, the eyestripe 
being most pronounced. The sketch which I made of it shows 
the wedge-shaped character of the tail, which seems to me a 

NOTES. 237 

striking feature of the species. I judge the bird to be immature, 
and the legs were of a very light flesh-colour. The wind at 
the time was south-east, and the weather fine and hot. 

On September 23rd, 1908, one of the wildfowlers of Cley, 
Norfolk, shot, at that place, an adult male Blue-headed 
Wagtail (Motacilla flava flava). The bird was examined by 
Mr. Witherby, and exhibited by him on my behalf at the 
meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Club, held on 
November 18th last. 

F. I. Ricwarps. 


Wits regard to Mr. Oldham’s note on the singing of a Cirl 
Bunting in October, it was recorded some years ago in the 
** Zoologist ’ by Professor Salter, that this species sings from 
time to time throughout the winter in Wales. My brother 
and I heard one at Reigate on October 31st this year, singing 
in the morning and afternoon at the same place. The follow- 
ing day I heard another. Between October 10th and 15th 
on very warm days I heard several Yellowhammers, one of 
them in full song, near Tunbridge Wells, and my brother 
heard a Corn-Bunting singing in Romney Marsh on October 
13th. We had not previously heard either of these two 
species singing after the moult, and I think in the case of the 
Yellowhammer at any rate, it is abnormal. We have not 
heard any Reed-Buntings singing, however. As far as we 
have observed, all the Corn-Buntings leave this part of the 
country for the winter, so that there is no chance of hearing 
them; Yellowhammers are also a good deal less common, 
and begin to sing as soon as they return in February. Between 
November 12th and 20th, while staying in Hayling Island, 
Hants. I have heard Cirl and Corn-Buntings singing a good 
deal, even on cool and sunless days. aie cat eee 
WirH reference to a note on a Cirl Bunting singing in October 
(antea, p. 204), I find by my notes kept over some years at 
Clevedon, in Somerset, that I have records of this bird’s song 
in every month in the year, my earliest date being January 
8th, and my latest December 18th. ie Mian 
In the Mendip district of Somerset the Cirl Bunting sings 
intermittently throughout the winter. One has been singing 
here at Winscombe on more days than it has been silent 


during the last four weeks (1 write on November 17th). I 
see that I noted it as singing on November 16th last year, 
and in January, 1907, I heard two birds in full song near 
Glastonbury. In my experience the Cir! Bunting does not 
sing in winter unless the weather is both still and mild—as 
an instance, the bird here was silent during the week of colder 
weather earlier in the month. The Corn-Bunting, on the 
contrary, may be tempted into song on a very cold frosty 

morning, provided there is bright sunlight. 
C. I. Evans. 


On October 2nd, 1908, a female specimen of the Little Bunting 
(Emberiza pusilla) was picked up at the Rockabill Lighthouse 
(off the coast of co. Dublin) and forwarded to me. The bird 
was exhibited on my behalf by Mr. W. R. Ogilvie-Grant at 
the meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Club held on 
October 21st last. The Little Bunting has not previously 
been recorded from Ireland. 

R. M. BaRRIneTOoN. 

Mr. H. N. Pasuuey, the well-known taxidermist of Cley-next-_ 

the Sea, Norfolk, has sent me an adult female example of the 
Little Bunting (Hmberiza pusilla), which was brought to him 

on October 19th by a local gunner, who had shot the bird ~ 

that day. Five examples of this bird have been previously 
recorded as occurring in England, thirteen in Scotland, and 
one in Ireland (cf. antea, Vol. L., pp. 249, 291, 383, 385, and 
above). This appears to be the first record for Norfolk. 

Nine years ago, when Howard Saunders published the 
second edition of his “ Manual,” only one example of this 
species was known to have occurred in this country. Mr. 
Eagle Clarke, I may remind my readers, found on Fair Isle, 
the Little Bunting in some numbers amongst flocks of Twites, 
and it thus may very easily escape notice. 

I had the pleasure of exhibiting the bird at the meeting of 
the British Ornithologists’ Club, held on November 18th 


WE have already referred to the interesting spread of the 
Great Spotted Woodpecker in Scotland (cf. Vol. I., p. 280). 
Mr. J. A. Harvie-Brown* now provides a valuable paper on 

* «Ann. §.N.H.,’’ 1908, pp. 209—216 (with map). 

NOTIES. 239 

the subject, while Mr. W. Evans* discusses the very interesting 
question as to whether the birds, which are now thoroughly 
established in the south-eastern half of Scotland, owe their 
origin to England or Scandinavia. At one time nesting in 
the faunal area of Moray, the Great Spotted Woodpecker 
became extinct asa breeding species in Scotland between 1841 
and 1851. Since that date there have been a number of autumn- 
winter irruptions, chiefly on the east coast, of presumably 
Scandinavian birds. In 1887 the first brood since the ex- 
tinction of the bird as a nester was found, and this at Duns 
Castle woods, in Berwickshire. From that date it gradually 
extended, and its breeding range now embraces practically 
the whole of the south-eastern half of Scotland, although 
it seems strangely absent from Fife and Kinross. All this 
is well traced by Mr. Harvie-Brown, who illustrates his paper 
with an excellent map. It may be noted that a breeding 
record for Aberdeen (cf. antea, Vol. I., p. 281) is omitted. 
Dr. Hartert has lately} shown us that the English Great 
Spotted Woodpecker (D. major anglicus) differs from the 
Scandinavian bird chiefly by its smaller and more slender bill 
and shorter wing, and Mr. Evans finds that three of these 
Scottish breeding birds belong to the English race. This 
fact points to the conclusion that Scotland is being repopulated 
from England, and not by the Scandinavian visitants, and it 
is hoped that more specimens may be examined to prove the 
contention conclusively. | 
The study of geographical races has only just begun in this 
country, but many of us have long been confident that a 
thorough appreciation of geographical forms would teach us 
very much (and notably in connection with migration 
problems) which is unknown, and even unsuspected, concerning 
the avifauna of the British Isles. Mr. Evans’ observations 

are, therefore, very welcome. 
H. F. WitruHersy. 


In his interesting notes on the Common Cuckoo in India, in 
your issue of November, Major Magrath calls attention to 
“a semi-upright attitude” assumed when uttering the call- 
note. ‘The following note in my diary may be of interest :— 
“May 12th, 1905.—Two Cuckoos alighted in one of the trees 
beside the lawn where I was sitting, a third alighting a little 
way off. Two of the birds I judged males from their 
behaviour. The one nearest me became very excited, uttering 
* t.c., 216—218. {+ BririsH Birps, Vol. I., p. 221. 


the ordinary as well as the three-syllable call-note all the 
time. His movements reminded me of the domestic male 
Pigeon paying court to his female. He kept raising his body 
to an upright position, spreading out his feathers, especially 
those of the tail, and spinning round on his perch, exactly as 
does the Pigeon. During this exhibition the female remained 
silent. Thereafter all three birds flew away.” 



In connection with the spread of the Little Owl (Athene 
noctua) which formed the subject of an article in a recent 
number of this Magazine (wde Bb. B., Vol. I., p. 335), it is 
interesting to note that these birds have now reached 
Warwickshire. Messrs. Spicer & Son, taxidermists, Bir- 
mingham, now have in their possession a specimen which was 
killed at Sutton Coldfield quite recently, though I am un- 
fortunately unable to give the exact date. 



THROUGH the generosity of Mr. Ruggles Brise, the British 
Museum of Natural History has just acquired a very remark- 
able variety of the Red-legged Partridge (Caccabis rufa) killed 
at Braintree on October 20th. 

This bird, a male, has the crown, sides of the head and throat, 
dull black. The upper part normal. The neck, breast and 
flanks, however, are of a uniform rich dark brown, but show 
faint traces of the characteristic barring of the flanks when 
held in certain lights. On the breast is a white patch, recalling 
the horseshoe of the English Partridge. No similar variety 
has, we believe, ever been recorded, though white specimens 
have several times been met with. A bird “ with a white 
breast-band,’ according to Yarrell’s ‘“ British Birds,” was 
obtained in the Haute Garonne in November, 1872, and 
similar varieties, it is interesting to note, ‘“‘ were captured 
at the same season in the years 1873 and 1874.” 

W. P. Pycorary 


On November 11th I was duck shooting with a friend on the 
south side of Wexford Harbour and saw a bird which I 
identified as a Grey Phalarope. We were by the side of a 
“pill? (an inlet from the sea containing brackish water, 
as it receives the drainage from the marshes) when a small 

NOTES. 241 

bird flew past and alighted upon the water about thirty yards 
away. It then slightly lowered one wing, inclined its head 
to that side, bobbed, or ducked, two or three times, and 
turned partly around. I thought it was wounded, and so 
did our retriever, who dashed in to get it, and disturbed it 
before it completed the turning movement. The bird would 
fly about thirty yards and alight upon the water, swimming 
easily and lightly, and made six or seven flights, always within 
gunshot, during nearly ten minutes. It twice more started 
to turn and bob, causing the dog to rush at it, and once 
allowed the dog to get within a yard before rising. The bird 
was in a foot to fifteen inches of water. I was much struck 
with the compact, neat, and graceful appearance of the bird, 
while its tameness was in marked contrast to the wildness of 
the various other kinds of Plovers we saw. It was blue-grey 
above, and very pure white upon head and breast. Un- 
fortunately I had not got my Goerz glasses with me, but I 
noted its two most conspicuous markings—a black patch on 
the nape of the neck extending partly forward with spots or a 
faint line, and, when flying, two rows, or one broad row, 
of light feathers across the secondaries (I could not notice 
whether the primaries were marked so) giving the appearance 
almost as if this portion of the wing was cut out. 

R. C. BANnKs. 

[In his “ List of Irish Birds”? Mr. R. J. Ussher refers to 
this species as an “irregular visitor in autumn and early 
winter, chiefly in October and in bad weather.’’——-H.F.W. | 


THouGH somewhat late to do so, it may be as well to place 
on record the occurrence of the Buff-breasted Sandpiper 
(Tringites rufescens) in Lincolnshire. 

I shot an example of this American species on the foreshore 
at North Cotes on September 20th, 1906. The bird singularly 
resembled a Reeve both in appearance and flight, and but for 
its small size I should have paid little attention to it. 

It was by no means shy, and allowed me to approach it 
within thirty yards on the open saltings. This is, I believe, 
the first appearance of this species in the county. 

G. H. Caton Haten. 

On September 28th last I shot an example of Sabine’s Gull 
(Xema sabinit) off Gramthorpe Haven. It was a young 
bird, in the plumage in which this species usually occurs in 
this country. It was sitting alone on a sandbank, though 


there were large flocks of other Gulls in the immediate 
neighbourhood. Its note was singularly like that of the 
Arctic Tern. 

During the latter part of September and the beginning of 
October considerable numbers of Skuas, Gannets, Divers, 
and Shearwaters passed along the Lincolnshire coast. 

G. H. Caton Haiacu. 


Wirth reference to Mr. A. G. Leigh’s note on the late nesting 
of Grebes (antea, p. 171), on searching my note-book I find 
the following entries : ‘‘ Sept. 7th, 07, Roddlesworth Reservoir 
(Brinscall, Lancs.), a nest of the Little Grebe (Podicipes fluvi- 
atilis) containing four eggs; the bird left her eggs uncovered, 
but I was unable to ascertain how much they were incubated 
because of several feet of deep water intervening.” ‘“‘ Sept. 
8th, 07, in a pond close by my house I discovered another 
nest of the Little Grebe with two eggs; these eggs were not 
incubated and no more were laid; they hatched safely.” 
Even allowing that these were second, or possibly third nests, 
they were, I think, remarkably late for a moorland district. 
W. Mackay Woop. 

[In reference to Mr. Leigh’s expression of doubt as_ to 
whether the Great Crested Grebe is double-brooded, the 
Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain writes that he has tolerably conclusive 
evidence of one case where two broods were reared by one 
pair of Great Crested Grebes. In 1907 a pair had large young 
on June 13that Osmaston. On October 6th Mr. J. Henderson 
reported a pair on the same pond accompanied by four young 
in down, which looked not much larger than Dabchicks. Mr, 
Jourdain adds that the eggs of this bird have been taken 
from April to September, which is strong, though not con- 
clusive, evidence—since late nests may be the result of the 
destruction of previous eggs or broods—of their being 
double-brooded. Mr. Jourdain gives the following references :— 
Karly dates—April 13th, 1888, 1 egg (C. R. Gawen, Zool., 1889, 
p- 19); April 26th, 1881, 2 eggs (J. H. Gurney, t.c., 1881), Late 
dates—July 22nd, 1898, nests with 3, 4, and 5 eggs in North 
Ireland, and other nests with eggs on September Ist (C. B. 
Horsburgh, Field, October 29th, 1898). More recent records 
of late nesting were on September 18th, 1904, when Mr. C. 
Oldham saw downy young ones (Zool., 1905, p. 37), and this 
year, on October 10th, when Mr. O. V. Aplin saw an old bird 
in ‘‘ practically full summer plumage,” with two half-grown 

NOTES. 243 

young (t.c., 1908, p. 407). Howard Saunders does not appear 
to ai this bind as double-brooded, and perhaps it is only 
so when certain favourable conditions prevail.—H.F.W.] 


Durine September and October three specimens of the Sooty 
Shearwater (Puffinus griseus) were shot on the coast of Sussex 
and Kent, and, as I was enabled to examine each of them 
in the flesh, I venture to place the occurrences on record. 
The particulars are as follows: (1) a 3. East Bay, Dungeness, 
September 26th, 1908; (2) a 9, Cliff End, Pett, near 
Winchelsea, October 14th, 1908; and (3) a ¢@, off Bexhill, 
October 21st, 1908. 


I have a note from Mr. W. J. Clarke, of Scarborough, of 
one of these birds obtained some miles off the coast of 
Yorkshire on October 6th last.—H. F. WirHeErsy. 

an Guards 

—In reference to the supposed nesting of this bird in Forfar 
in June, 1907 (antea, Vol. I., p. 126) Mr. T. L. Dewar has 
submitted one of the eggs to Mr. Eagle Clarke, who pronounces 
it to be that of a Common Whitethroat (cf: Ann. S.N.Z., 
1908, p. 254). 

Two were seen in the middle of July at Killilan, North-west 
Highlands, and one had food in its bill (P. Anderson, Ann. 
S.N.H., 1908, p. 253). 

ABERDEEN.—Between May 19th—July 31st a pair of Motacilla 
flava flava was often observed frequenting the banks of a burn 
on the links near Aberdeen. On July 8th the female was 
carrying food, and the behaviour of the birds always seemed 
to show that they had a nest, although this was not found. 
An accurate description of the birds is given (L. N. G. Ramsay, 
Ann. S.N.H., 1908, p. 253). 

Hawsincuns IN ScoTLaAnD.—An old bird and a young one 
were seen at Lauder, Berwickshire, in August, 1908 (W. 
M’Conachie). A female was accidentally captured on April 
9th, 1908, at Grove Gardens, Galloway, in which county the 
bird has been recorded from time to time for many years 
(R. Service, Ann. S.N.H., 1908, pp. 252 and 253). 


Pastor roseus was shot at Dunbeath on July 11th, 1907 (Ann. 
S.N.H., 1908, p. 195). 

NicutsARS BREEDING IN Capriviry.—An extraordinary 
case of a pair of Nightjars breeding in captivity is recorded 
by Mrs. Heinroth, wife of Dr. O. Heinroth, of the Berlin 
Zoological Gardens. In November, 1906, a male bird was 
obtained, and was kept with great care through the winter. 
In the following spring a mate was procured, and pairing 
took place at the end of May. The male made a nesting 
place by scraping in a peccary-skin rug in the dining room. 
An egg was laid on June 2nd and another on the 4th. The 
hen bird did most of the sitting; but the male occasionally 
relieved her. On June 18th the first egg was chipped, and 
hatched on the morning of the 20th, while the second egg 
hatched on the afternoon of the same day. The young fed 
at first by taking the parents’ beaks as far as the nostrils 
into theirown. On June 24th the old birds again paired, 
and on July 3rd and 5th eggs were laid in the same spot 
upon the rug. Incubation in this case lasted eighteen days 
as against sixteen anda quarter in the first case, the longer 
time being accounted for by the fact that the old bird 
allowed the eggs to cool several times. The tameness of 
these Nightjars is described as extraordinary—the six birds 
flying about the room, taking no notice of strangers, and 
being quite ready to settle on the shoulder or take food 
from the hand (Die Gefiedeste Welt, xxxvii., 29-31, 33-4, and 
wield, Mite, "O8.qy, 717). 

RED-FOOTED Fatcon 1n NorroLtK.—The Rev. Julian G. 
Tuck records the occurrence of a female Falco vespertinus, 
which was shot near Sandringham about the middle of June 
last (Zool., 1908, p. 394). 

ScorTish HEeronries.—Mr. H. Boyd Watt gives a list of 
230 Scottish breeding places of the Heron, but of these he 
marks forty-five as now not occupied, while many others 
appear to be tenanted by only a pair or two. (Ann. S.N.H., 
1908, pp. 218-223). 

PurrPLE Heron In CalTHNEss.—A young male Ardea 
purpurea is reported on the Thrumster Estate on September 
16th, 1907 (Ann. S.N.H., 1908, p. 199). 

party of five Plegudis falcinellus arrived near Alnmouth on 
August 30th. Four (two of which are said to be in 
immature plumage) were secured during the following ten 

NOTES. 245 

days (E. L. Gill, Zool., 1908, p. 394). One was ‘lately’ shot 
near Land’s End (H. Welch, Field, 24, x., 08, p. 721). 

_ Matiarp Hatcnine In Ocroser.—A Wild Duck hatched 
out thirteen young in the middle of October at Thames Ditton 
(R. Porter, Feld; 24, x., 08, p. 721). 

pairs of Anas strepera were under observation in a certain 
loch in the east of Scotland this year from the middle of May 
until the end of June, and they were doubtless nesting there 
(W. Evans, Ann. S.N.H., 1908, p. 254). 

increasing yearly as a breeding species (P. Anderson, Ann. 
Nua, 1908, p. 252). 

MarkED TEAu.—A hand-reared Teal marked at Netherby, 
Cumberland, this year, was shot on Lough Derg on September 
28th (R. Graham, Field, 24, x., 08, p. 745). 

GARGANEY IN SHETLAND.—A male Querquedula circia is 
reported from Baltasound on April 14th, 1907 (Ann. S.N.H., 
1908, p. 200). 

a few birds each have been reported (antea, pp. 98 and 134) 
of Syrrhaptes paradoxus in Yorkshire during the recent 
irruption of this bird. Mr. W. H. St. Quintin now records 
(Naturalist, 1908, p. 420) that a flock of 30 to 40 was noticed 
early in June near Knapton. A considerable number remained 
at any rate until the beginning of October. The flock appears 
never to have broken up into pairs, although it certainly 
decreased, and there is no evidence that the birds ever 
attempted to breed. 

Glareola pratincola was obtained on July 13th, 1908, at this 
out-of-the-way spot. It is the third example of the species 
obtained in Scotland (W. Eagle Clarke, Ann. S.N.H., 1908, 
p- 256). 

October issue of the “Ibis” Mr. W. P. Pycraft contributes 
a short paper on the position of the ear in the Woodcock, 
in the course of which he controverts the contention of 
Professor D’ Arcy Thomson, that the peculiar conditions which 
prevail in the matter of the position of the ear in the Scolo- 
pacide are due to the shifting of the beak in relation to the 
base of the skull. Mr. Pycraft now shows that the matter 
is not thus to be explained ; but, on the contrary, is due to 
the shortening of the base of the skull, which has had the 


effect of drawing the hinder part of the skull, and with it the 
aperture of the ear, downwards and forwards, and this point 
is demonstrated by means of a series of diagrams. 

MarkED Woopcock.—Mr. John Hamilton has for four 
seasons marked young Woodcock at Baron’s Court, co. 
Tyrone, with a nickel ring engraved “ B.C.,” with the year 
in figures. The results, as far as known, are as follows, but, 
unfortunately, the dates of the captures are not given :— 

Number accounted for. 

= — 
Breeding Number In first In second In third Not 
season. marked. season. Place. season. Place. season. traced. 
1905 15 1 Home i Home Nil 13 
3D Home 
1906 68 1 Home 1 Cornwall} — 60 
L Harrow 
1907 65 _ — -- os — 65 
: Near ) ; 
1908 ei 1 { Inverness __ = 7: 62 
Total 211 200 

(Field, 17, x., 08, p. 717, and 24, x., 08, p. 745). 

Xema sabinii is recorded from Skerryvore on November 30th, 
1907 (Ann. S.N.H., 1908, p. 205). 

Podicipes cristatus was seen at Spiggie on January 11th, 1907 
(Ann, SN... 1908; p. 207). 

=) ia) SN 

‘We og 


Report on the Immigrations of Summer Residents in the 
Spring of 1907: also Notes on the Migratory Movements 
during the Autumn of 1906. By the Committee appointed 
by the British Ornithologists’ Club. (Forming Vol. XXIL., 
Bull. B.O.C. Edited by W. R. Ogilvie-Grant). 31 Maps. 
Witherby & Co. 6s. 

Tuis, the third Annual Report of the B.O.C. Migration Com- 
mittee, although drawn up in the same form as previous 
reports, is rather more ambitious in that it includes some 
notes on autumn movements. These are too incomplete, 
however, to have much value, but we welcome the promise 
of a more elaborate record of autumn movements in the 
next report. In our notice (antea, Vol. I., p. 30) of the 
second ‘“‘ Report,’ we questioned the accuracy of the 
table which shows the areas of the arrival of the various 
species, and curiously enough in the present ‘“‘ Report” this 
table (p. 11) is not free from blemish, the White Wagtail 
being entered as arriving solely in the western half of the south 
coast, whereas in the detailed summary on page 107, as well 
as in the map, it is shown to have been reported first in Kent, 
and similarly the table does not tally with the summaries 
and maps in the cases of the House-Martin and Common 
Sandpiper. It would be as well, perhaps, to omit this table 
in future, or it may become permanently misleading, since 
even when it is corrected it is obvious by a comparison of the 
three “‘ Reports’ that the points of non-arrival-seem due in 
a great measure to want of observation. ach successive 
** Report,’ indeed, makes one realise more and more how 
little even the best observer is able accurately to record of 
the movements of migrants, and only an average of the 
results taken over a long period, as the Committee have 
from the first insisted, can lead to any reliable conclusions. 
Some interesting points recorded in this volume may here 
be summarized. March, 1907, was brilliantly fine, but the 
whole of April was wintry; the effect being that stragglers 
arrived at early dates, but the main body of birds was delayed, 
with the result that the “ waves” of immigrants were less 
marked, and the period of migration was extended. The 
Blackcap was noted by many observers to be less numerous 
than usual in 1907. Chiffchaffs were seen at Penzance 
throughout the winter. The Cuckoo was reported on 
March 26th (Gloucester), 29th (Hereford), 30th—31st 


(Wilts.), 31st (Dorset, Hants., Gloucester). The Land-Rail 
was neither heard nor seen in 1907 by observers in Hants., 
Sussex, Middlesex, Essex, Bucks., Herts., or Suffolk, and only 
once in Kent, twice in Berks. and Lincoln, and thrice in 
Norfolk. It seemed practically confined during the year 
under notice to the western counties. A specimen of the 
Continental Robin (Hrithacus rubecula rubecula), which is 
common on migration on the east coast, was taken on April 
7th at St. Catherine’s Point, Isle of Wight. On page 180 
the curious statement is made that the Dartford Warbler is 
rarely seen in winter in Hampshire! 

In conclusion, we can unreservedly recommend the present 
and the two previous “ Reports’ to every student of migra- 
tion, and we may add that the B.O.C. Committee and its many 

helpers all over the country by no means labour in vain. 

A Last of Irish Birds. By BR. J. Ussher, M.R.I.A., M.B.0.U. 
Dublin: A. Thom & Co. 4d. 
Tus is a very useful up-to-date “ abbreviated text book ” 
on Irish birds. Mr. Ussher has placed within square brackets 
those American land birds which have been recorded from 
Ireland, and, on the whole, this is perhaps wise, although in 
a case suchas the Yellow-billed Cuckoo, which has now occurred 
so many times in England, although seldom in Ireland, the 
rule might, perhaps, have been relaxed. Amongst other 
birds placed within square brackets we may mention the 
Noddy Tern, which has long been accorded a_ regular 
place upon the British list on the basis of two examples recorded 
by Thompson as having been obtained between the Tuskar 
Lighthouse and the Bay of Dublin about 1830. The birds 
were brought into port skinned, and we think that Mr. Ussher 
is perfectly right in not admitting them, more especially as the 
taxidermist who was responsible for the record was proved 
to have been unreliable in the case of two Belted Kingfishers 
supposed to have been shot a few years later. Of positive 
information additional to that given in the author’s well- 
known ‘ Birds of Ireland,” there is very little, but we note 
the following, which do not appear to have been recorded 
elsewhere :—Five occurrences (against three in Saunders’ 
Manual) of the Red-breasted Flycatcher are noted, but no dates 
are given; an example of the Serin Finch, the second for 
Ireland, was taken on January 3lst, 1907; a third specimen 
of the Lapland Bunting was taken alive at Kilbarrack on 
December 12th, 1907 ; the Jay is extending its range, and has 
spread into Kildare and Meath ; a pair of Pochards, with their 
young, were identified by Mr. R. Patterson in June, 1907, 
in Monaghan. H.W 




JANUARY 1, Ae Vol. I. 
1909. ie No. 8. 



NAUMANN (J. F.). “N aturgeschichte der Vogel Mitteleuropas. » Neubear- 
beitet von Prof. R. Blasius, W. Blasius, R. Buri und herausgegeben von 
Carl R. Hennicke.  Jubitdums-Prachtausgabe. 

well-known Bird Painter J. G. Keulemans, Bruno Geisler, E. de Maes 
» . and others. 

12 Vols. Folio, Dresden, 1896—1904. nen 
Bound in half cloth, £6 10s. net. Bound in half morocco, £8. 8s._ net. 
a ha | copy of this Work in cloth was ney ats By ae eeen at Messrs. Hodgson’s : 

Salerooms for s. 

WILLIAMS & NORGATE, 14, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London, W. C. 


Naturalists’ Camera, 
1907. MODEL, 
For Telephoto or: Ordinary LENSES. 

Lenses are used 
by the most 
| skilled Bird 

The following are 
specially | recommended 

THE STIGMATIC. SERIES Il. F/6 (Convertible.) 

(A. Rapid Long Focus Lens ata Moderate Price.) . Ht sec | 

High or Moderate Power Telephoto Lenses (Original Make). : Monee: 
We are Specialists in Cameras and Apparatus for Photo-Ornithlogsts : ‘o 


Showrooms: 25, NEWMAN ade WwW. NEASDEN, LONDON, NW. ¥ : 1. 


Waturalists, ye 
And maiatienurars of CABINETS and APPARATUS for Entomology, Birds’ Fees ah ins 
and Skins, and all Branches of Natural-History. | | ee 

Speciality: -—Obiects for Nature Study, Drawing Classes, &. > . 


All Books and Publications on Natural History vophlied, 

36, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. (Five Doors from Charing ts) . a 

Catalogue (ipa pp.) Post: ® free. 


Palate BY: W. P. PYCRAFT, ALS, MB.O.U. 

CoNTENTS OF NuMBER 8, Vou. II. January 1, 1909. 

A Tame Snipe and its Habits, by Hugh Wormald. .. Page 249 
Some Early British Ornithologists and their Works, by 

W. H. Mullens, m.a., Lu.M., m.B.0.U. VI.—Thomas 

Pennant (1726-1798). Mr iM 259 

On the More Important Additions to our enemas of 
British Birds since 1899, by H. F. Witherby and N. F. 

Ticehurst. Part XVI.—(continued from page 229)  .. 267 
The Greenland Wheatear (Sazicola enanthe leucorr a Py 
C. B. Ticehurst, M.A., M.R.C.S., M.B.0.U. .. 271 

Notes :—The Jubilee of the British patton oe 
(Eds.). The British Ornithologists’ Union and Rare 
Breeding Birds (Eds.). Irish Birds (H.F.W.). Rare 
Birds in Ireland (W. J. Williams). Albinistic Variety 
of the Redwing (Evelyn V. Baxter and Leonora Jeffrey 
Rintoul). The Northern Marsh-Titmouse in England 
(W. R. Ogilvie-Grant). The First British Example of 
the Red-throated Pipit (M. J. Nicoll and N. F. Tice- 
hurst). Richard’s Pipit in Norfolk (H. F. Witherby). 
Some Sussex Ravens (Lt.-Col. H. W. Feilden). Little Owl 
in North-West Oxfordshire (W. Warde Fowler). Scaup- 
Ducks in Nottinghamshire in the Spring and Summer 
of 1908 (J. Whitaker). Amputation of Lapwing’s 
Toes by Means of Wool (Henry B. Elton). Black-necked 
Grebes in North Lancashire (H. W. Robinson). Leach’s 
Fork-tailed Petrels in Cumberland and _ Lancashire 
(Ea W.. ore Bulwer’s Petrelin Sussex - F.W.). 
Short Notes. : y 274 

Review :—Bird- Hea iiponal Wild neces He nie 284 



Havine been asked to write a few notes on my tame 
Snipe for BritisH Brirps, I cannot do better than relate 
his history from the beginning. He was hatched in my 
incubator on May 11th, 1908, incubation having lasted 


twenty days, at a temperature of 102° Fah. He 
remained in the incubator for twenty-four hours or so, 
drying off, before he had his first meal. There is no 
prettier young bird than a Snipe in down, the colour of 
which is a rich reddish-brown, speckled with black, and 
here and there tipped with white. Unfortunately a 
pen and ink drawing (Fig. 1) cannot do justice to the bird 
at this stage. The combination of colours renders the 
chick extremely difficult to find in its natural surroundings, 
even when one knows to within a foot or so where it is 
hiding, and I may mention that a spaniel is a very 

Fic. 1.—A day old. 
(Drawn by H. Wormald.) 

‘useful aid in searching for both eggs and young of 
Plover, Redshank, and Snipe. 

For the first two days of his existence my young Snipe 
ran backwards instead of forwards. I believe this is 
the case in a wild state. The young do not pick up food 
for themselves, like most young waders, but the parents 
feed them from the bill. I had for some time believed 
this to be the case, and was glad to have my opinion 
verified a short time ago by Mr. Richard Kearton, who 
informed me that he had watched a male Snipe feeding 
his offspring in this way. In consequence of this habit, 
I had to feed my young Snipe entirely by hand for the 


first: fortnight, the food then consisting of small worms, 
of which he devoured an enormous quantity. As soon, 
however, as he had learnt to feed himself he took to 
maggots, and any small animacule that he could find 
while probing at the edge of a pond, or in mud which I 
dug up and gave to him in a pan. 

The first signs of feathers appeared on the shoulders 
on May 17th. The feathering was very rapid, the feathers 
of the tail and the back of the neck being the last to 
appear. Fig. 2 shows the bird at this stage of develop- 
ment. By the beginning of July he was quite grown up 


Fic. 2.—As he appeared at the end of May. 
(Drawn by H. Wormald.) 

and fully feathered. During the last week in September 
he commenced his first moult by losing his tail-feathers, 
the two outer ones being the last to fall. The moult 
was completed about a month later. On October 18th my 
brother winged a Common Snipe, which I took home alive, 
and this bird I take to be also a bird of the year, owing 
to the facé that it (I do not know the sex) was in exactly 
the same state of moult as my hand-reared bird. Adults 
begin to moult during the end of July, and I have 
constantly seen them during the first week in August 
with their wing-feathers in full moult, but immature birds, 


as is commonly the case with waders, do not moult their 
primaries at all in their first autumn. 

‘‘ John ” (as my tame Snipe is christened) is exceedingly 
sluggish, and I believe that all Snipe are naturally so 
when undisturbed. He lives in a cage in the smoking- 
room, and sits every evening on a board in front 
of the fire. On being taken out of his cage and placed 

Fie. 3.—Preening his Feathers. 
(Photographed by P. H. Bahr.) 

on the board his usual procedure is to give himself 
a shake (this he always does after being handled), 
and then eat two or three worms, after which he 
retires as near the fire as he can get, and ‘suns ” 
himself for some little time. He then has another worm 
or two, preens his feathers (Fig. 3), and rests, either 
standing on one leg or squatting down on the board. 
Occasionally he varies this procedure by taking a bath, 


and very rarely he will hover round the room. His 
attitudes while sunning himself are very extravagant. 
He leans right over to one side and spreads his tail out into 
a fan, the outside tail-feathers nearest the fire only being 
extended beyond the rest. This is curious, for while 
bleating both outer tail-feathers are extended far beyond 

Fic. 4.—Giving his Feathers a shake. 
(Photographed by P. H. Bahr.) 

the rest. He also raises the wing nearest the fire to get 
all the heat possible under the feathers. He continues 
in this attitude for a few minutes, then gives his feathers 
a shake (Fig. 4), turns round, and “suns” the other 

The bill of the Snipe is known to be extraordinarily 


flexible, and this is well shown as the bird yawns, when 
the last inch or so of the upper mandible is raised upwards. 
This movement is thought to be effected by the 
endotympanic muscle first described in 1748 by Hérissant* 
who, however, did not realise its function. Later the 
movement of the bill was described and figured in Bronn’s 
‘Thier Reich” (Taf IV.,fig.1). Mr. Pycraftt has observed 
the same thing in the Dunlin, and Dr. R. W. Shufeld,t 
in Wilson’s Snipe and the American Woodcock. It would 
appear that in all the T'rochili and Scolopacide the anterior 
part only of the upper mandible is movable.§ Mr. W. H. 
Workman|) has written a paper on this subject, and has 
proved the endotympanic to be especially well developed 
in this species, and suggests that it acts by pulling the 
quadrate and maxillary bones forward, thus tilting the 
premaxillary upwards, which then gives at its most flexible 
portion, situated one inch from the tip of the bill. The 
use of this movement is obvious, in that it enables the 
bird when probing to grasp a worm underground, without 
even opening its bill, so that the tongue can draw the 
prey into the mouth. The flexibility of ‘‘ John’s ” bill can 
also be noticed when he is trying to take a worm off a: 
hard flat surface, for then the tip of the upper mandible 
bends downwards. 

His food, now that maggots are not procurable, 
consists entirely of worms, though I am _ endeavour- 
ing to teach him to eat raw liver, for worms will be 
very difficult to obtain during prolonged frost. He 
feeds entirely by “ feel,” being unable to see a worm right 
under him, but if one is placed two or three inches in front 
of him, he catches sight of it at once and walks up to it, 
then feels about with his bill until he touches it, when it 
is instantly swallowed. This shows the sensibility of the 
bill. He can also instantly distinguish between raw 
liver and a worm as soon as they come in contact with his 

* « Histoire de l’ Academie des Sciences,” 1748, pp. 345-386. 

T “"Tbis,’1803. p: 361. t “Ibis,” 1893, p. 563. 
§ Gadow, “ Dict. Birds,” p. 877. [| ** Ibis,” 1907, p. 614. 


‘bill, but this is not so surprising when one realises that 
the last inch or so of the bill is a mass of nerves. Fig. 5 
shows him toying with a worm held in front of him. He 
feeds at intervals throughout the whole day and night, 
and eats a large quantity of grit and small pebbles, which 

Fig. 5,—Toying with a Worm. 
(Photographed by P. H. Bahr.) 

can be heard grinding in his gizzard quite distinctly 
at a distance of several feet, especially immediately 
after feeding; the gizzard grinds twelve times to the 
minute. The digestion is wonderfully rapid, so much so 
that I do not think a worm stays in the bird for more 
than ten minutes. His hearing is very acute, and I have 
seen him listen like a Thrush, then drive his bill into the 


turf and bring out a worm, which is sucked down with 
no apparent exertion, and the bird does not throw back 
his head as one constantly sees depicted, but rather 
stretches out his neck, the bill pointing downwards. 
Fig. 6 shows him in the act of swallowing a worm. If 
the worm is too large to be swallowed whole, it is hammered 
and pinched until broken up, when the pieces are 
swallowed separately. He will eat any kind of worm 
except brandlings, and is very fond of the grubs of 

Fic. 6.—In the act of Swallowing a Worm. 
(Photographed by P. H. Bahr.) 

daddy long-legs. While feeding he keeps up a perpetuan 

‘ John ”’ is not so large as a wild Snipe, nor is his bill 
so long as it should be, and I put both these defects down 
to his being hand-reared. He is exceedingly tame, 
and will let me do anything with him (cf. Fig. 7). He 
will even “‘ display ’ to me, walking round and round my 
hand, uttering the spring note, with his tail spread out in 


a fan, gently poking my hand with his bill. Then he squats 
down flat on the ground with his neck stretched out, 
which makes me wonder whether “he” is not really a 
female. Mr. Bahr’s photographs are the best proof 
that could be given of his tameness to anyone 
who has not seen him, for they were taken almost 
on the window sill, the window being wide open, with 
the camera held three feet from the bird, which did 
not even flinch at the click of the shutter. Fig. 8 

Fic. 7.—A Proof of his Tameness. 
(Photographed by P. H. Bahr.) 

depicts him looking out of the open window at a 
passing Rook. 

When at rest he almost invariably stands on one leg, 
hopping about, and even feeding in this attitude, a habit 
common with most waders. Constantly he will play by 
himself, commencing by standing bolt upright and then 
squatting down flat, with his tail raised and spread out 
into a fan (the two outer tail-feathers not extended 
beyond the others). Then he will suddenly take two or 
three jumps to either side with wings closed. After 


going through this performance perhaps _ half-a-dozen 
times he strolls leisurely off. 

As far as I can judge his eyesight is about equal during 
day and night. I have been asked how weather affects 
him, but this I am unable to answer, because he lives, 

Fre. 8.—Looking at a passing Rook, 

(Photographed by P. H. Bahr.) 

as before stated, in my smoking-room, out of the reach 
of weather. 

It should be stated that “John” is in perfect health 
and plumage. So many so-called tame birds are really 
ill, which is the cause of their tameness, but I think the 
illustrations show that my Snipe’s tameness is not caused 
through ill-health. 

( 259) 



Wee Bee LHINS:) M.A., La.Mi, > MB.0.U. 
VI—THOMAS PENNANT (1726—1798). 

ALTHOUGH the fame of Thomas Pennant both as a 
naturalist and as an author, has suffered somewhat by 
the lapse of time, he nevertheless must ever hold a some- 
what prominent position amongst the British ornitholo- 
gists of the past. This he would, perhaps, be entitled to 
by reason of his being the author of the first important 
history of British birds, which was illustrated with 
coloured plates* (7.e., The British Zoology, London, 
1766, one vol., folio). But this point, interesting as it is, is 
quite overshadowed by the fact that it was owing to 
Pennant’s undoubted position as the leading British 
zoologist of his time that Gilbert White was led to address 
to him, in the shape of letters, those notes and observations 
which afterwards formed part of the immortal ‘“‘ Natural 
History of Selborne.” The numerous zoological works 
of Pennant had, moreover, a very marked effect on the 
production of ornithological literature in Great Britain. 
The period which had elapsed from the death of the 
celebrated John Ray in 1705, till the publication of 
Pennant’s “ British Zoology ”’ in 1766 is among the leanest 
in the history of British ornithology, but the publication 
of Pennant’s works seems to have given an impetus to 
the production of such literature, and though many of 
the books that followed his “‘ British Zoology,” in quick 
succession, such as John Berkenhout’s ‘‘ Outlines of 
the Natural History of Great Britain’ (London, 1769, 
three vols., 8vo); William Hayes’ “ Natural History of 

* The first book treating of British birds, illustrated with coloured 

plates, would appear to be “A Natural History of English Song 
Birds,” by Eleazar Albin, London, 1737, 1 vol., 8vo. é 


British Birds ” (London, 1775, one vol., imp. folio) ; John 
Walcott’s ““Synopsis of British Birds”? (London, 1789, 
two vols., 4to); William Lewin’s “Birds of Great Britain ”” 
(London, 1789, seven vols., imp. 4to); Thomas Lord’s 
“Entire New System of Ornithology, or Ccumenical 
History of British Birds ” (London, 1791, 1 vol., folio); 
Bolton’s *‘ Harmonia Ruralis’ (London, 1794, two vols., 
folio); and Edward Donovan’s “ Natural History of 
British Birds ”? (London, 1794, ten vols., 8vo); were litile 
more than compilations, and of no particular interest 
save to the collector and bibliographer. Exception 
must be made in favour of such valuable works as John 
Legg’s *“‘ Discourse on the Emigration of British Birds ” 
(one vol., 8vo), anonymously published at Salisbury in 
1780, and afterwards erroneously attributed to George 
Edwards ; Tunstall’s “‘ Ornithologia Britannica,’* which 
also appeared anonymously in 1771 (London, one vol., 
folio); the well-known ‘“‘General Synopsis of Birds,” by 
John Latham (London, 1781), which contained in the 
second volume of its supplement “ A List of the Birds of 
Great Britain,” and the still more famous ‘‘ History of 
British Birds,” by Thomas Bewick, the first volume of 
which appeared in 1797. 

Thomas Pennant, the son of a country gentleman, 
was born at Downing, in Flintshire, in the year 1726, 
and was educated at Queen’s College, Oxford. Our 
principal source of information for the particulars of 
Pennant’s life is his own work :— 

“The / Literary Life / of the late / Thomas Pennant, 
Esq. / By Himself. / [Latin quotation] London: / Sold 
by Benjamin & John White, Fleet-Street, / and Robert 
Faulder, New Bond-Street. / MDCCXCIII. 

1 vol., 4to, pp. 144 & IV. Plates. 

From this quaint and somewhat self-laudatory work 
we learn that Pennant having received as a present from 
a kinsman, when twelve years old, a copy of the 

* A similar but much rarer work by Charles Fothergill was published 
at York in 1799. 


“Ornithology of Francis Willughby,” early developed 
a “‘ taste for that study, and incidentally a love for that 
of natural history in general, which I have since pursued 
with my constitutional ardor.’ Pennant began the first 
of his many “ Tours,” his accounts of which from their 
topographical interest are more read at the present day 
than his other writings, from Oxford in 1747. His first 
literary work, an extract from a letter written to his uncle, 
James Mytton, concerning an earthquake at Downing 
in 1750, appears in the 10th volume of the ‘“‘ Abridgement 
of the Philosophical Transactions,’ and thenceforward 
his active pen knew no rest until the time of his death, 
when he was engaged on an ambitious work entitled 
** Outlines of the Globe,” of which he had projected some 
fifteen quarto volumes, only four of which would seem 
to have been published. It is here only possible to deal 
with a few of the zoological books of this prolific author, 
but it may afford some idea of the vast output of his 
writings if we mention that the number of plates engraved 
for his several works totals no less than eight hundred 
and two (cf. Literary Life, p. 38). In 1755 Pennant 
commenced a correspondence with the great Linnzus, 
and in 1757, as he tells us, received “ the first and greatest 
of my Literary honors,” being elected “at the instance 
of Linneus himself,” a member of the Royal Society of 
Upsal. In 1761 Pennant began to publish his “‘ British 
Zoology,” which, when completed in 1776, contained 
one hundred and thirty-two coloured plates, engraved 
by Peter Mazel, and coloured by Peter Pallou, ‘“ an 
excellent artist, but too fond of giving gaudy colours to 
his subjects.” This work which, as Pennant himself 
observes, would have been more useful in quarto size, 
he produced chiefly at his own expense, devoting the 
proceeds to the “ benefit of the Welch Charity-School on 
Clerkenwell Green” (cf. adv. to the second edition of 
The British Zoology, 1768). The publication of the 
first edition of the “ British Zoology ” had been delayed 
by a journey, which Pennant made to the continent in 


1765. In the course of his travels he visited Buffon 
(1707-1787) at Paris, and informs us that “‘ the celebrated 
naturalist was satisfied with my proficiency in natural 
history, and publickly acknowledged his favourable 
sentiments of my studies in the fifteenth volume of his 
‘Histoire Naturelle.’ Unfortunately long before I had 
any thoughts of enjoying the honour of his acquaintance 
I had in my ‘ British Zoology ’ made a comparison between 
the free-thinking philosopher and our great and religious 
countryman, Mr. Ray, much to the advantage of the 
lather 27.2.0 but such was his irritability, that in the 
first volume of his ‘ Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux,’ he 
fell on me most unmercifully, but happily often without 
reason.”’ From France, Pennant passed on to Germany 
and Holland, and at The Hague met Pallas (1741-1811), 
the famous traveller, ““a momentous affair, for it gave 
rise to my ‘Synopsis of Quadrupeds,’ * and the second 
edition, under the name of the * History of Quadrupeds,’ fT 
a work received by the naturalists of different parts of 
Europe in a manner uncommonly favourable.” 

To return to the “ British Zoology,” the full title is 
as follows :— 

“The / British Zoology / Class I. Quadrupeds. / 
II. Birds. / Published under the Inspection of the / 
Cymmorodorion Society, / Instituted for the / Promoting 
Useful Charities and the knowledge of / Nature among 
the Descendants of the / Ancient Britons. / [lustrated 
with / one hundred and seven Copper Plates. / London : / 
Printed by J. & J. March, on the Tower Hill, for the 
Society : / and sold for the Benefit of the British Charity 
School on / Clerkenwell-Green. MDCCLXVI. 

1 vol., imp. folio. Collation: pp. 14, un. -+ pp. 162 = 
pp. 4, Index and list of “‘ Encouragers to this Under- 
taking,” + CXXXII. Plates. (A fifth part containing 
twenty-five plates was added to the one hundred and 
seven enumerated in the above title, thus making one 

_ * Chester, 1771, 1 vol., 8vo. + London, 1781, 2 vols., 4to. 


hundred and thirty-two in all, viz., eleven of quadrupeds 
and one hundred and twenty-one of birds.) 

In 1768 appeared the second edition of the above. This 
was published in two volumes by Benjamin White (brother 
of Gilbert White, the naturalist), who paid Pennant £100 
for the right of publication. 

In 1770 an octavo volume was published of ninety-six 
pages, “including a list of European Birds extra 
Britannic,’ and CII. Plates. This must rank as the 
third edition of the “ British Zoology ’’—it was incor- 
porated in the fourth edition, published in 1776, four 
volumes 4to and 8vo. This edition was printed at 
Warrington for Benjamin White, and is sometimes found 
with the plates coloured. A fifth edition, also in four 
volumes, 4to and 8vo, appeared in 1812. 

It may here be mentioned that the folio edition of the 
‘“ British Zoology ”’ had been translated into German and 
Latin by “‘M. de Murre, of Nurenbergh,” and published 
in the same size as the original, hut the colouring of the 
plates is an improvement on that in the English edition. 

The summer of the year following the publication of 
the ‘‘ British Zoology,” viz., August, 1767, saw the com- 
mencement of the celebrated correspondence between 
Gilbert White and Thomas Pennant; White’s share of 
which (Pennant’s is lost) was afterwards published in 
his “ Natural History of Selborne.” This correspondence 

continued down to November, 1780, and consisted in all 
of forty-four letters, the first actually addressed to Pennant 
by White being numbered ten in the series, the preceding 
nine being added for the sake of uniformity when White 
published his book in 1789. The correspondence was 
commenced by White, who was prompted to address 
his observations to Pennant both on account of the latter’s 
leading position as a naturalist, and also because “ of 
your repeated mention of me in some late letters to my 
brother ” (i.e., Benjamin White, Pennant’s publisher). 
_ There does not seem to have been any great friendship 
| between White and Pennant—Gilbert White appears to 


have been hurt at Pennant’s making full use of the 
material contained in White’s letters for his second and 
subsequent editions of the “ British Zoology,” without 
due acknowledgment ;* and Pennant makes no mention 
of the Selborne naturalist in his “ Literary Life.” 
‘* Little did he anticipate,” says Professor Bell, .... 
“that his correspondent would be commemorated with 
ever-increasing admiration and esteem, while his own 
more pretentious book is only regarded of value because, 
at the time of its publication, it filled a gap in British 
Natural Science, and contained some matter of import- 
ance, the best of which was really not his own.” 

It was, however, probably to Pennant that White owed 
his first introduction to Daines Barrington, his other 
correspondent ; and to whom the remaining sixty-six 
letters of the “‘ Natural History of Selborne”’ were 
addressed. Writing to Pennant in 1768, White says, 
‘““T have received from your friend Mr. Barrington one 
of the naturalist’s journals, which I shall endeavour to 
fill up in the course of the year.” 

In 1766 Pennant made the acquaintance of another 
very eminent man, Sir Joseph Banks (1743-1820), the 
zoologist, and companion of Cook in his circumnavigation 
of the globe. The commencement of Pennant’s friendship 
with Sir Joseph Banks was signalised by a gift from the 
latter of a copy of Turner’s “ Avium Historia,” a book 
which even at that time was described as scarce. From 
Sir Joseph Banks, Pennant received much kindness and 
help, notably in the case of his “Arctic Zoology,” 
published in 1785 (three volumes and supplement, 4to), 
which, although mainly a compilation, proved to be 
by far the most valuable of Pennant’s zoological works, 
and which was translated into German, French, and 
Swedish. Of Pennant’s contributions to natural history 
there is but little to be said; they derived their great 

* But such acknowledgment was rare at that time, and Pennant 
does refer to the help he received from White, p. xiii., preface, and 
p- 498, appendix to the 1768 edition of the “‘ British Zoology.” 



i265 1798. 

the Engraving by J. Romney, after the Painting by 


T. Gainsborough.) 


popularity partly from their very brief and formal 
descriptions, and partly from the lack of standard works 
available both at that time, and for many years to come. 
The charm of Gilbert White had yet to be discovered, 
and though the woodcuts of Thomas Bewick proved a 
oreat incentive to the study of ornithology, it was not 
until the genius of George Montagu produced in 1802 
the ‘ Ornithological Dictionary” that the work which 
had been begun by Willughby and Ray, was properly 
continued. The very productiveness of Pennant’s work 
no doubt also detracted from its utility—as he himself 
tells us, “I am often astonished at the multiplicity of 
my publications, especially when I reflect on the various 
duties it has fallen to my lot to discharge, as a father of a 
family, landlord of a small but very numerous tenantry, 
and a not inactive magistrate.” * Towards the close of 
Pennant’s active life he was confined to his ancestral 
seat at Downing by an accident which broke the patella 
of his knee, but he continued to work with unabated 
energy at the revision of his “‘ Outlines of the Globe,” 
but his health was rapidly failing, and he passed away 
on December 16th, 1798, at the advanced age of 

* Besides the Zoological works already mentioned, Pennant wrote 
*“Indian Zoology,’ 1769-179G; ‘‘Genera of Birds,’ Edinburgh, 1773, 
and London, 1781; ‘‘ Indexes to the Ornithologie of the Comte de 
Buffon,” 1786, while the observations on natural history contained 
in the various Tours, notably in ‘‘ The Tour to Scotland,” 3 vols., 
1776, and that ‘‘in Wales,” 3 vols., 1810, are of considerable interest, 
and this principally from the fact that they were jotted down without 
any attempt at scientific treatment. 



Parr, XE 
(Continued from page 229.) 

COMMON SNIPE Gallinago celestis (Frenzel). S. page 573. 

Weight.—Ninety shot in Shetland averaged 5.78 oz. Have 
been killed up to 7? oz. (Ann. S.N.H., 1906, p. 53, and 1905, 
DD: D0). 

“ Sabine’s Snipe.”’—Some examples regarded as mutations 
or discontinuous variations and not melanoid varieties (W. 
P. Pycraft, I6vs, 1905; p. 289). 

BROAD-BILLED SANDPIPER Limicola  platyrhyncha 
(Temm.). °S: page 577. 

Kent.—An immature female was procured near Littlestone- 
on-Sea, on August 3lst, 1901 (L. A. Curtis Edwards, Zool., 
1901, p. 390). 

SussEx.—An immature female was shot at Rye on August 
29th, 1904 (M. J. Nicoll, Bull. B.O.C., XV., p..12). 

Vieill. S. page 579. 

SUFFOLK.—One was shot at Aldeburgh on September 13th, 
1900 (EK. C. Arnold, Zool., 1900, p. 521). [A “ Pectoral Sand- 
piper’ was reported in the “Field” to have been shot at 
Southwold on September 2nd, 1904 (J. H. Gurney, f.c., 1905, 
p- 96).] 

CoRNWALL.—Two have been obtained on the mainland of 
the county, the last at Porthgwarra on April 30th, 1906 (J. 
Clark, i.c., 1907, p. 286). 

Scitty Istes.—Ten are recorded in place of four mentioned 
in the ‘“ Manual.” The last was shot by Captain Dorrien- 
Smith in September, 1891 (J. Clark and F. R. Rodd, t.c., 1906, 
p. 339). 

TRELAND.—A young bird in full autumn plumage was shot 
at Belmullet, co. Mayo, early in October, 1900 (H. Saunders, 
Bull.B.O.C., XT1., p. 34), and another was shot near the same place 
in September, 1900 (R. J. Ussher, List of Irish Birds, p. 44). 


CHANNEL IsLANDS.—J/ersey.—One in Mr. Romeril’s collection 
was shot from a party of four about thirty years ago (A. Mackay, 
Zool., 1904, p. 379). 

AMERICAN STINT Tringa minutilla Vieill. 8S. page 587. 

CoRNWALL.—One “ was killed bya fisherman near Mousehole 
in September, 1890, and was bought in the flesh by W. E. 
Baily, of Paull, in whose collection the writer saw it in Feb- 
ruary, 1902, incorrectly labelled ‘ Tringa minuta’”’ (J. Clark, 
Zool., 1907, p. 286). 

CURLEW-SANDPIPER Tinga subarquata (Gild.). 
S. page 591. 

Nestine.—Found nesting numerously in June, 1901, by the 
late Dr. H. Walter in the Taimyr Peninsula (H. E. Dresser, 
Ibis, 1904, p. 231). 

KNOT Tringa canutus L. 8S. page 595. 

Nestinc.—Found nesting in June, 1901, by the late Dr. H. 
Walter in the Taimyr Peninsula. The eggs vary greatly in form, 
size, and coloration; the nests—depressions lined with a few 
dry grass-bents and white tangle—were placed in grassy places 
on the Tundra; the incubating male (or female) did not leave 
the nest until almost trodden on, when it puffed out its 
feathers until it appeared almost double its normal size ; 
the male was most careful of the young, but the female appeared 
as an uninterested spectator (H. E. Dresser, /bis, 1904, p. 232). 
A clutch of eggs was taken in Hrisey, in the north of Iceland, 
on June 17th, 1898, and the bird belonging to it is stated to 
have been watched at a few yards’ distance by a competent 
observer—E. Moller, a collector in Iceland, now dead (Otto 
Ottosson, f.c., 1905, p. 105). 

DiIsTRIBUTION.—7". canutus is an irregular visitor to India 
on migration as well as 7’. crassirostris (F. Finn, t.c., p. 351). 
Dr. V. Bianchi has informed us that 7’. canutus is common on 
the Yenesei and Lena Rivers. 

RUFF Machetes pugnax (L.). 8. page 599. 

DurHAM.—Nested in 1901, 2 and 3 near the mouth 
of the Tees, and not on the Yorkshire side as stated antea Vol. I., 
p. 68 (T. H. Nelson, /bis, 1906, p. 735 and in litt.). 

HeEBRIDES.—Six records for the Outer Hebrides are detailed 
(J. A. Harvie-Brown, Ann. S.N.H., 1903, p. 13). South Harris. 
—A male, autumn, 1906 (Field, 29, rx., 06, p. 580). Coll.— 
One about September 16th, 1905 (t.c., 1906, p. 201). 


IRELAND.—For a detailed account of the various occurrences 
cf. C. J. Patten, “ Irish Nat.,” 1900, p. 187. 

BUFF-BREASTED SANDPIPER Tringites rufescens (Vieill.). 
S. page 601. 
NorFrotk.—An immature male was shot near Wells, on 
September 7th, 1899 (KE. C. Arnold, Zool., 1899, p. 475). 

BARTRAMW’S SANDPIPER Bartramia longicauda (Bechst.). 
S. page 603. 
CoRNWALL.—One was found hanging in a poulterer’s shop 
at Falmouth in October, 1903, by Dr. Owen (J. Clark, Zool., 
1907, p. 286). 

SPOTTED SANDPIPER Totanus macularius  (I..). 
S. page 605.* 
Kent.—A pair were shot on May 5th, 1904, in a ditch between 
Lydd and Brookland, in Romney Marsh (J. L. Bonhote, Bull. 
BOC:, SEV :p. 84): 

WOOD-SANDPIPER Totanus glareola (J. F. Gm.). 
S. page 607. 

TRELAND.—One was obtained on August 26th, 1899, by Mr. 
J. F. Knox, on the Black Strand, Trancore, co. Waterford 
(EK. Williams, Jrish Nat., 1899, p. 231). One was shot on 
August 19th, 1901, near Sutton, co. Dublin (W. J. Williams, 
men, 1901.) p. 205). 

ORKNEY.—One was shot on Eday on September Ist, 1902 
(C. S. Buxton, Zool., 1902, p. 391). 

GREEN SANDPIPER Totanus ochropus (L.). S. page 609. 

ScoTLAND.—South Uist—One was obtained in the autumn 
of 1901, and was the first recorded for the Outer Hebrides 
(J. MacRury, Ann. S.N.H., 1902, p.55). Fair Isle (Shetlands.) 
—One or two (the first for the Shetlands or Orkneys) were 
seen in early September, 1905 and 1906 (W. E. Clarke, t.c., 
1906, p. 76, and 1907, p. 79). 

IRELAND.—A solitary bird was shot at Foxford, co. Mayo, 
on June 30th, 1903 (G. Knox, Jrish Nat., 1903, p. 248), and 
another at Malahide, co. Dublin, on April 28th, 1906. The 
species is chiefly known in Ireland as a casual autumn and 
winter visitor (R. J. Ussher, List of Irish Birds, p. 46). 

SOLITARY SANDPIPER. Totanus solitarius (Wilson). 
S. page 611. 
SussEx.—One was shot at Rye Harbour on August 7th, 
1904 (C. B. Ticehurst, Bull. B.O.C., XV., p. 12). 


Nestinc.—The eggs were first taken in 1903, and again 
in 1904 in Northern Alberta by Mr. Evan Thompson. — 
They are described as being like those of the Green Sandpiper, 
but considerably smaller, and like that bird, this species lays 
in the old nests of other birds. One set of eggs was found on 
June 16th, 1903, in the old nest of an American Robin, some 
fifteen feet from the ground ; another on June 9th, 1904, in a 
Bronzed Grackle’s nest, in a similar position, and another on 
June 24th, 1904, in the old nest of a Cedar-Waxwing (ef. 
F. C.. R. Jourdain, Jéis, 1905, p. 158, and “1907, p. aby, 
Pl. XI, Wigs 4,4). 

SPOTTED .REDSHANK Totanus fuscus (L.). 
S. page 617. 

ScoTLaAND.—LHast Renfrewshire-—One was seen in October, 
1898, and a pair in September, 1899 (Ann. S.N.H., 1899, 
p- 51, 1900; p. 51). Dumfriesshire.-—One was shot on Feb- 
ruary 13th, 1899, on the Solway (t.c., 1899, p. 112). One was 
seen in October, 1903, at Carsethorn (t.c., 1904, p. 216). 

NortaH WateEs.—Very rare, only occurred three or four 
times—the last on the Dovey Estuary in September, 1899 
(H. KE. Forrest, Vert. F. N. Wales, p. 362). 

Nestina.—Nests found by the late 8. A. Davies and Mr. J. 
Stares on the River Muonio (Lapland) were always in the 
marshes (bis, 1905, p. 84). : 

RED-BREASTED SNIPE Macrorhamphus griseus (J. F..Gm.). 
S. page 621. 

YORKSHIRE.—One shot in September, 1864, on Norland 
Moor has been examined by Messrs. Eagle Clarke and Nelson 
(B. of Yorks., p. 638). 

HaAmpsHIRE.—Iwo, said to have been got in the county, 
are in Mr. Hart’s collection, one being dated September, 1872, 
and the other October, 1902 (J. E. Kelsall and P. W. Munn, 
B. of Hanis., p. 320). 

BLACK-TAILED GODWIT Limosa belgica (J. F. Gm.). 
S. page 625. 

ScoTLanp.—Outer Hebrides —Two have apparently been 
obtained (cf. J. A. Harvie-Brown, Ann. S.N.H., 1903, p. 14). 
Lanarkshire.—Three were identified near Lenzie on May 4th, 
1907 (J. Paterson, f.c., 1907, p. 184). 

COMMON CURLEW Numenius arquata (L.). 8S. page 627. 

SurREy.—A nest was found and two eggs taken on Chob- 
ham Common in 1897 (H. Saunders, Bull. B.O.C., XI., p. 34). 

(To be continued.) 

( OTres) 


Cr Be LVICHHURST, M.A... M.Re8., M.B.O.U.. 

IT is curious that so little attention should have been 
paid to this bird of late years, and that its migrations 
through Great Britain should be so little known. Gould, 
in his *‘ Birds of Great Britain,’’ seems to have noted the 
occurrence of this large Wheatear, but it was not until 
1879 that Lord Clifton (now the Earl of Darnley) pointed 
out that this race did not arrive on the Kent and Sussex 
shores till May and, besides being larger, differed from 
the small race in having a deeper reddish buff throat 
and breast; further, he did not know of its occurrence 
west of Sussex (Lb7s, 1879, pp. 256-7). 

As far as I have been able to ascertain no one, since 
Lord Clifton wrote on the subject, has described its range 
in Great Britain. JI have examined 460 Wheatears or 
Wheatears’ wings, obtained in various parts of Great 
Britain, and in many other parts of the world, and I[ think 
that it can be said with certainty that the Greenland 
Wheatear passes through the whole of Great Britain on 
migration, for I have seen specimens of it from Yorkshire, 
Suffolk, Norfolk, Kent, Sussex, Hants, Middlesex, Corn- 
wall, Scilly Isles, Channel Isles, Pembrokeshire, co. 
Wexford, and Shetland, whilst Mr. Barrington (Migration 
of Birds at Irish Lnghts) records Wheatears with large 
wings from cos. Cork, Donegal, Antrim, Dublin, and 
Wicklow, which evidently belong to this race. 

It usually arrives in the south of England during the 
last week in April, and the first week in May, and 
continues passing through till the end of that month ; 
a few early ones may sometimes be seen migrating with 
the small race in the second and third weeks of April, 
and the earliest record I have is April 15th. The return 
journey takes place usually during the latter half of 
September, though a few examples are recorded during 


the last week in August, and the first part of September ; 
they continue to pass during October, and the latest date 
of which I have a record is October 31st. 

Of the distribution of this Wheatear outside Great 
Britain more is known, for Herr Stejneger, in reviewing 
the whole subject (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus., Vol. XXIIL., 
No. 1220) states that it migrates via France, Great Britain, 
Shetlands, and Faroe Islands, to Greenland and the 
opposite portions of North America, as well as to Iceland, 
where it is the breeding species, whilst the western part 
of North America is inhabited by the small (typical) 
race, which reaches these parts via the Asiatic continent. 

Exactly where the Greenland Wheatear passes the 
winter is not yet completely known. Hitherto it has been 
supposed to have been more or less confined to the 
western part of North Africa, Senegal (where probably 
the original type specimen was obtained), and Gambia 
districts, but I have seen undoubted specimens from 
Khartoum, Nubia, and Fashoda; so that, although the 
majority may winter in West Africa, some at least spread 
as far east as the Nile Valley. It apparently passes 
through the Azores on migration. 

The first Wheatears arrive in Greenland, according 
to Herr Winge (Groenland’s Fuglefauna) about the end 
of the first week of May; in early years it may be seen 
in the first few days of May, in late years not till the third 
week. The return migration lasts from mid-August 
to mid-September, and few are seen by the end of that 
month ; it has frequently been met with flying over the 
open sea south-west of Iceland. Whether this race breeds 
in the Faroe Islands or not must, I think, at present 
remain doubtful. 

Taking into consideration the difference in coloration 
and size, migration, and breeding area, I have not the 
slightest hesitation in agreeing with Lord Clifton and 
Herr Stejneger as to the distinctness of the Greenland 
race. The following diagrams give the results of my 
measurements of 450 Wheatears’ wings :— 

Number measured. 

Number measured. 


Length of Wings of Males in millimétres. 

[a8 [69 20] 91 [oz] 939 [95 | 96 | 07 | 98] 99 [100] 101 [102 [103] 104 | 105 [106 107 | 108] 
Li) 2 a SD a 

es 182 males of Saxicola enanthe enanthe. 
— — 61 males of Sazicola enanthe leucorrhoa. 

Length of Wings of Females in millimétres. 

—— 137 females of Saxicola enanthe cnanthe. 
— — 34 females of Saxicola enanthe leucorrhoa. 

It will be seen that there is some slight overlapping 
in measurements, but I find that this does not amount 
to more than 2 per cent. of individuals—which agrees 
exactly with Herr Stejneger’s results. Herr Winge states 
that no Wheatears from Greenland which he has examined 
measure less than 100 mm. in the wing, with which state- 
ment I can quite agree (the two or three females of 99 
mm. which [ measured probably being rather worn 
specimens) ; moreover, I have not been able to find any 
Wheatears shot outside the range of the Greenland 
Wheatear which do not conform in mane measurement 
to the small race. 

All these birds were measured by myself, and only those 
with which full data were recorded have been utilised. 


THE meeting to celebrate the Jubilee of the foundation of the 
B.O.U. in 1858 was held at 3, Hanover Square, on December 
9th, 1908. Dr. F. Du Cane Godman, the President, was in 
the chair, and the proceedings commenced by the reading 
of a number of congratulatory messages from other 
Ornithologists’ Unions. Dr. Godman then gave a_ short 
address, which showed how intimate had been the relation 
between the progress of ornithology and the progress of 
the B.O.U. Dr. P. L. Sclater gave a history of the Union, 
its journal, the “ Ibis,” of which he has for so many years 
been editor, and its founders, chief amongst whom was the 
much-lamented Alfred Newton. Mr. A. H. Evans spoke 
very briefly of the life and work of some of the founders. 

Mr. Henry Upcher, as the earliest (surviving) elected member 
(1864), then took the chair, and presented on the _ behalf 
of the members of the Union, a gold medal to each of the four 
(surviving) founders, viz., Dr. F. Du Cane Godman, Dr. P. L. 
Sclater, Mr. Percy Godman, and Mr. W. H. Hudleston. The 
medal bears on the obverse the well-known figure of the Ibis, 
on the reverse the name of the recipient. 

A facsimile of the original list of the twenty founders, 
written by Newton and corrected by Dr. Sclater in 1859, was 
handed round. Amongst the names famous in ornithology, 
besides those already mentioned, may be noted Lieut.-Col. 
H. M. Drummond (first President), T. C. Eyton, J. H. Gurney 
(Senr.), Hon. T. Lyttleton Powys (afterwards Lord Lilford), 
Osbert Salvin, Rev. (afterwards Canon) H. B. Tristram, and 
John Wolley. 

In the evening a largely attended commemorative dinner 
was held. 

A special volume of the “ Ibis ” commemorating the Jubilee 
and containing a history of the Union, with lives of the 
founders and principal members, together with portraits, 
will be published shortly. 


At the annual meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Union, 
held in May last, H. F. Witherby proposed a new rule, the 

NOTES. 275 

effect of which was to exclude from the Union any member 
who took or connived at the taking of any bird or egg of 
certain species which were extremely rare as breeding birds in 
the British Isles. The proposer explained that his rule was 
founded on purely scientific grounds, his opinion being that 
it was unscientific, and, therefore, directly contrary to the 
interests of the premier Ornithologists’ Union of the world, 
to exterminate or risk the extermination of any bird in any 
particular portion of its breeding area, and so alter its natural | 
geographical distribution. The details of the rule were much 
criticized, and it was generally thought to be too drastic in 
character, although the majority at a largely attended meeting 
were without doubt in favour of the “ spirit’ of the proposed 
rule. It was decided to refer the matter to the Committee 
for consideration. 

At a Special General Meeting of the Union held on De- 
cember 10th Dr. F. Du Cane Godman, the President, being in 
the chair, the Commitee communicated their report, and 
submitted a new rule for the consideration of the members. 
The proposal to adopt the new rule was seconded by H. F. 
Witherby, who withdrew his proposed rule. Amendments moved 
by the Hon. Walter Rothschild and Dr. J. Wiglesworth were 
carried, and amongst others who took part in an exhaustive 
discussion were the following :—Messrs. R. M. Barrington, 
W. Bickerton, P. F. Bunyard, W. Eagle Clarke, Dr. F. D. 
Drewitt, Messrs. J. Gerrard, N. Gilroy, A. F. Griffith, Dr. E. 
Hartert, Sir T. Digby Pigott, Mr. A. Trevor-Battye, Lt.-Col. 
R. G. Wardlaw-Ramsay, and the Honorary Secretary, Mr. J. L. 
Bonhote. The rule as amended was then put to the meeting 
and was carried unanimously. The new rule will require con- 
firmation at the next annual meeting of the Union. As finally 
amended it reads as follows :— 

“If, in the opinion of the Committee, any member shall have: 
acted in a manner injurious to the interests of or good name of 
the Union, or shall have personally assisted in, or connived at,, 
the capture or destruction of any bird, nest or eggs in the British 
Isles, by purchase or otherwise, likely, in the opinion of the- 
‘Committee, to lead to the extermination or serious diminution 
of that species as a British bird, the Secretary shall be 
directed to send a registered letter to the member, stating 
the facts brought before the Committee, and asking for an 
explanation of the same, but without mentioning the source 
from which such information was obtained. After allowing 
a reasonable time (not less than a clear fortnight after the 
receipt of the Secretary’s letter) for reply, or for appearing in 
person before the Committee if he so desire, the Committee, 
provided that not less than four are agreed, shall have 
power to remove that gentleman’s name from the List of 


Members without assigning any reason. Such member may, 
if he so desire, stand for re-election by ballot at the next 
Annual Meeting, and in the event of his re-election, no fee 
for re-admission shall be required.”’ 

The action of the British Ornithologists’ Union in condemn- 
ing in such unhesitating fashion the practice of collecting the 
birds and eggs of rare British breeding species will be received 
with the most intense satisfaction by all who have the science 
of Ornithology at heart.—Ebs. 


In noticing Mr. Ussher’s “ List of Irish Birds” in the last 
number of this Magazine, I much regret to have done an 
injustice to Irish ornithologists—quite unintentionally—by 
stating that little information had been added since the 
publication of Messrs. Ussher and Warren’s “ Birds of 
Treland.” I fully intended to add, “ which had not already 
been referred to in these pages.” Mr. Ussher has very kindly 
supplied me with particulars of the information additional 
to that in the ‘“ Birds of Ireland” contained in his ‘ List,” 
and I am glad to be able to draw attention to the following 
records which have not already been mentioned in BritisH 
BrrpDs :— 

WateEr-Prrit.—A specimen shot by the late Canon Tristram 
on Rockabill, co. Dublin, in June, 1861, has hitherto been 
unrecorded. This, the first and only Irish specimen, is now 
in the Dublin Museum. 

Honey-Buzzarp.—One was shot in King’s County, on 
September 28th, 1903. 

AMERICAN BitTERN.—Has now occurred fifteen times, 
as against eleven given in the “ Birds of Ireland.” 

SPOONBILL.—Has occurred in thirty-five instances, while 
only thirty-three were mentioned in the “ Birds of Ireland.” 

CRANE.—In the “Catacombs” cave at Edenvale, co. 
Clare, several bones of Crane have been discovered. 

There is also additional information with regard to some of 
the Terns and Shearwaters and other birds which will be noticed 
in the articles on “ Additions.” Mr. Ussher also points out 
that in the case of the Rose-coloured Starling he made a slip 
in stating that only about twenty had been recorded—the 
number should have been twenty-eight. H.F.W. 


Buack Repstart (Ruticilla titys). 
One was shot near Mountrath, Queen’s co., on November 
4th, 1908. 

NOTES. 277 

Honety-Buzzarp (Pernis apivorus). 

An immature male was shot near Ardee, co. Louth, on 
October 13th, 1908, and, being only winged, was forwarded 
by its captor to the Dublin Zoological Gardens where, however, 
it died within a week of its arrival. 

OspREY (Pandion haliactus). 

On November Ist, 1908, a bird in immature plumage flew 
on board a fishing-boat coming to Wexford, and was captured, 
but died soon after reaching the shore. I examined the bird 
and found it thin, although the plumage was in good order. 

BuFFON’S SKUA (Stercorarius parasiticus). 
A bird in first year’s plumage was shot in a wood bordering 
Lough Neagh, co. Antrim, on November 18th, 1908. 


A very large specimen of Colymbus glacialis in full summer 
plumage was shot on the River Moy, co. Sligo, on October 
31st, 1908. The bird showed no trace whatever of winter 
plumage, and was in fact in better plumage than birds I have 
examined in the month of May. W. J. WILLIAMS. 


Earzty in November we received from Filey, Yorkshire, an 
albinistic variety of the Redwing. This bird was pale cream- 
coloured all over, the bases of the feathers being, however, 
grey. Its beak was yellowish, and the legs and feet were very 
pale brown. We sent it to Mr. Eagle Clarke, who identified 
it as Turdus iliacus, and we have presented the bird to the 
Royal Scottish Museum. 



An undoubted example of the Northern Marsh-Tit (Parus 
borealis De Selys) was shot at Tetbury, Gloucestershire, in 
March, 1907, by Mr. J. H. Paddock, who presented it to the 
British Museum. I had the pleasure of exhibiting this bird 
at the meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Club held on 
November 18th, 1908 (cf. Bull. B.O.C., XXIII., p. 34). In 
January, 1908, I observed a small lot of four or five Marsh- 
Tits, undoubtedly of this species, at Welwyn, Herts. My 
attention was first attracted by their Linnet-like song, com- 
posed of a number of broken ascending notes, entirely different 
to the call of the common Marsh-Tit. I watched the birds 
at very close range, and had no doubt in my own mind that, 
they were Scandinavian Marsh-Tits, the white sides of the 



face and the pale upper-parts being very conspicuous. Iwas, 
however, unable to procure a specimen; and, although I wrote 
to Mr. H. F. Witherby, describing my experience, I did not 
venture to place my observations on record until receiving 
this undoubted example of P. borealis from Mr. Paddock. Itis 
difficult to account for the appearance of this North-west 
European Titmouse in Great Britain, for, so far as is at present 
known, it is not a migratory species. It must now, however, 
be added to the list of our accidental visitors. 

7 W. R. OGILviz-GRANT. 

THE first recorded “ British’? example of the Red-throated 
Pipit (Anthus cervinus) is said to have been obtained near 
Brighton on March 13th, 1884.* This example went into the 
‘Monk ”’ Collection, and finally passed into the Booth Museum 
at Brighton. 

A few months ago I had the opportunity of examining the 
specimen in question, and I have no hesitation in saying that 
it is not a Red-throated Pipit at all, but merely a brightly- 
coloured example of the Meadow-Pipit (Anthus pratensis). 
During the spring (March and April) large flocks of Meadow- 
Pipits arrive on the coast of Sussex, and all the males of these 
immigrants are very brightly coloured—in some the coloration 
of the throat and upper breast is almost as red as in some 
examples of Anthus cervinus—and it is undoubtedly owing 
to this fact that the bird in question has been wrongly 

If we exclude the Red-throated Pipit which was formerly 
in the collection of the late Mr. Bond, labelled “‘ Unst, May 
4th, 1854” (Saunders’ Manual, p. 135), the first British 
example is either the bird obtained by Mr. Prentis at Rainham, 
Kent, in April, 1880, or the undoubted example of A. cervinus 
shot near St. Leonards, Sussex, on November 13th, 1895 
(cf. Zool., 1896, p. 101). 

The Red-throated Pipit may be readily identified at all 
stages of plumage—except, perhaps, that of the nestling— 
by the clear black marking to the centre of the feathers of the 
rump and upper tail-coverts. The dark streaks on the 
longest pair of under tail-coverts are not a reliable feature, 
as these markings are frequently absent in Anthus cervinus 
and often present in Anthus pratensis. 

While on the subject of Pipits, I should like to point out 

* Borrer, “Birds of Sussex,” p. 101; and Saunders, “* Manual,” 
p. 135, 2nd ed. 

NOTES. 279 

that ail the examples of red-breasted Rock-Pipits in Case 16 
in the Booth Museum are “Scandinavian” Rock-Pipits 
(Anthus rupestris Nilss.); none of them are Water-Pipits 
(Anthus spipoletta), as has been formerly suggested. 


During the past summer I paid a visit to the Rochester 
Museum,which contains the admirable and excellently-cared for 
collection of the late Mr. Walter Prentis, of Rainham, and at 
Mr. Nicoll’s request carefully examined the bird to which he 
refers in the above letter. With much regret I came to the 
same conclusion with regard to it, as he has done with regard 
to the Sussex specimen : it is undoubtedly nothing more than 
an unusually bright Meadow-Pipit (A. pratensis). The breast 
is pinkish-yellow, notred, and the rump and upper tail-coverts 
are entirely devoid of the large black centres to the feathers, 
which are such a characteristic feature of A. cervinus. 

N. F. TicEHurst. 


Tus bird is a not infrequent autumn visitor to Norfolk, 
but it is worthy of record that a female was obtained at Cley 
on October 3lst, and another on November 18th last, as I 
am informed by Mr. H. N. Pashley. H. F. WITHERBY. 


I am indebted to Mr. Walter Hewett, who was then game- 
keeper to the lessees of Heathfield Park, for the following 
interesting account of the nesting-places of the Raven on that 
picturesque estate during the seventies of last centary. There 
were two nesting sites used alternately by a pair of Ravens 
in the park itself ; the one in a clump of old Scotch firs on the 
Tower plain, the other in the Gravel Pit clump, also ancient 
Scotch firs. This pair of Ravens were so destructive to 
lambs and ewes during the lambing season—at times destroy- 
ing the mother, during parturition—that deadly war was 
waged against them. The old Ravens were so wary that it 
was difficult to shoot them, but when the young were nearly 
ready to fly the nest was riddled with bullets, and the brood 
destroyed annually. In 1876 the Ravens deserted Heathfield 
Park and built their nest a mile or so away, in a group of 
Scotch firs, called the Mare and Foal, a very prominent object 
in the landscape, situated on the ridge that runs from Pun- 
nett’s Town, overlooking Cade Street. In April, 1876, Hewett 
took up his position in Slaughter Lane, on the south side of 
the Mare and Foal clump, sending a companion to the nest 
to disturb the birds. The male Raven fell to Hewett’s gun, 


but, being only winged, recovered, and lived for many years 
in the Devonshire Park, Eastbourne. The next day, taking 
advantage of a fog, Hewett shot the female from her nest. 
This closes the history of the Heathfield Park Ravens, 
doubtless descendants of those that feasted on the bodies 
of Cade and his followers who perished near the same spot— 
** Leaving thy trunk forcrows tofeed upon.” —Henry VI., ActIV. 


A parr of Little Owls established themselves at Kingham, 
Chipping Norton, last spring, and continued with us all the 
summer, attracting much attention by their loud cries, uttered 
repeatedly while hunting after sunset and during the early 
part of the night. I may mention that I have had great 
difficulty in finding a good description of this cry in English 
ornithological works ; but in Fatio’s “ Oiseaux de la Suisse ” 
I have at last found an excellent one. Professor Fatio is 
gifted with a very keen ear for the utterances of birds, and has 
had the experience of a long life among them. He writes 
(Vol. I., p. 194): “Son cri, souvent répété, et qui passe 
volontiers pour un mauvais présage, peut etre traduit de 
diverses manieres, selon les circonstances et les appréciations ; 
e’est souvent: kwitt ou kuwitt, parfois kuick ou kouuk, ou 
keuw-keuw ou encore powpou-poupou.’ The second of these 
descriptions agrees almost exactly with the way in which I 
attempted to syllable the cry myself last summer. 

No doubt the birds bred here, but we thought it advisable to 
refrain from making an elaborate search. As we are on the 
borders of Gloucestershire, I think their appearance here 
marks the farthest point to the west that the birds have as 
yet reached. W. WARDE FOWLER. 

[In western counties the Little Owl has previously been 
reported from Goring and Henley, in Oxfordshire (B. B., 
Vol. I., p. 338), Fairford, Willey, and Shrewsbury, in Shropshire 
(Vol. I., pp. 388 and 339), Avebury, in Wiltshire (Vol. IL., 
p. 100), and Sutton Coldfield, in Warwickshire (Vol. II., p. 
240).—H.F.W.] 7 

On March 21st, when fishing in the large lake in Thoresby 
Park (this piece of water is over ninety ‘acres, and is situated 
in the middle of a 2000 acre deer park) I saw one male and 
three female Scaups. I had my binoculars, and got pretty 
near to them in the boat. On May 2nd Mr. H. E. Forrest and I 

NOTES. 281 

saw three, and on August 14th the Rev. B. D. Aplin and I saw 
two females. Of course I cannot say if they nested, but I 
may mention that the lake is full of pike, and very few ducks 
rear many young ones. On all three dates I also saw a pair of 
Pochards, and one solitary male Goosander. Even the female 
Scaup, when once known, cannot be mistaken. It is much 
coarser about the head and bill than the Tufted, and shows 
the white, or pale yellow, face very distinctly. J. WHITAKER. 

A FRIEND of mine shot a Lapwing (in good condition) on 
September 28th in Wigtownshire, N.B., which, when we picked 
it up, was found to have the following condition of its feet :— 
Right foot—Amputation of inner two digits at the metatarso- 
phalangeal joints. Left foot—Amputation of internal digit 
at metatarso-phalangeal joints, and a tight constriction, 
caused by sheep’s wool, round the tarsus, just distal to the 

- “4 ,/ 
ribUre emf / 
seller, ea 
A ae 4 

<a eee 
etn he 3 : : 

hallux, the wool cutting deeply into the tarsus, especially 
on the outer side, and causing an everted edge to the furrow, 
similar to that observed on the remaining proximal end of 
the right foot. I am indebted to Mr. P. H. Bahr for kindly 
drawing the condition for me. Henry 8B. Evron. 

[A series of legs of the Lapwing affected in the same way 
as described above was shown by Dr. C. B. Ticehurst at the 
meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Club held on October 
19th, 1904 (cf. Bull. B.O.C., XV., p. 12). These specimens 
were from birds shot on Romney Marsh, and of eight Lapwings 
shot, four were thus affected. A similar case is recorded of a 
bird shot in co. Armagh (cf. A. R. Nichols, Irish Nat., 1905, 
p-. 32).—H. F. W.j 



THE occurrence of the Black-necked or Eared Grebe (Podiceps 
migricollis) in north Lancashire is, I venture to think, worthy 
of note, especially so of three specimens. The first, an adult 
in full summer plumage, I mentioned in the“ Zoologist ” 
of September, 1904, as having been captured alive on a pond 
at Middleton, near Morecambe, on July 28th, 1904. The 
second was shot on October 24th of the same year on the tidal 
part of the Lune below Lancaster, at Snatchems, and was an 
adult in full winter plumage, whilst the third, an immature 
bird, was shot in the same place as the last specimen in 
February, 1907. All the three specimens occurred within a 
couple of miles of one another. H. W. Rosryson. 

Durine the week between November 18th and 25th the coasts 
of north Lancashire and Cumberland were visited by numbers 
of Fork-tailed Petrels (Procellaria leucorrhoa). The week 
was a very stormy one, and the birds were probably blown 
inshore by heavy winds, some being found some distance 
inland. They were specially numerous off the slag-tip at 
Carnforth, near Lancaster, on the 23rd and 24th, and occurred 
all the way up the coast, and inland as far north as Carlisle, 
and into the West Riding of Yorkshire. From the dates of 
their capture it would seem that they were travelling down 
the coastline from north to south. H. W. RosBinson. 


A MALE example of Bulwer’s Petrel (Bulweria bulweri) was 
picked up much exhausted, but still alive, at Cliff End, near 
Winchelsea, Sussex, on September 4th, 1908, after strong 
south-westerly gales. The bird was taken to Mr. Bristow, 
of St. Leonards, for preservation, and was there seen 
in the flesh by Mr. W. R. Butterfield. It was eventually 
purchased by Mr. C. J. Carroll, by whose courtesy we 
have been allowed to photograph the stuffed bird. It 
was exhibited on Mr. Carroll’s behalf by Mr. W. R. Ogilvie- 
Grant at the meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Club held 
on November 18th, 1908. There have only been three 
previous occurrences of Bulwevr’s Petrel in the British Isles, 
and of these two have also been in Sussex. A Yorkshire 
example is quoted in Howard Saunders’ “ Manual” (2nd ed., 
p. 749), and on February 38rd, 1903, one was found dead at 
Beachy Head, while on February 4th, 1904, another was 
picked up dead at St. Leonards (Bull. B.O.C:, XIII., p. 51, 

NOTES. 283 

and XIV., p. 49). This Petrel breeds on the islands of the 
Madeira and Canary groups, and is also found in the middle 

Bulwer’s Petrel, picked up near Winchelsea, Sussex, on 
September 4th, 1908, 

of the Pacific in the Hawaiian group, as well as in the Bonin 
and Volcano Islands far to the south-east of Japan. H.F.W. 
ee eee 

WRYNECKS IN NortH LANCASHIRE.—An example of Iynx 
torqulla was captured alive on September 3rd, and anoth r 
on October 2nd, 1908, near Lancaster. At one time wne 
Wryneck seems to have nested in Lancashire, but it now rarely 
visits the county (H. W. Robinson, Zool., 1908, p. 428). 

Honey-Buzzarp IN ENGLAND.—The Rev. F. L. Blathwayt 
records that two were shot near Grantham and one near 
Lincoln between September 24th and October 5th, 1908 
(Zool., 1908, p. 428). On September 26th an immature bird 
was shot near Oldham (F. Stubbs, Nat., 1908, p. 456). One 
was shot near Beccles and another near Great Yarmouth (? in 
September), (B. Dye, Zool,, 1908, p. 468). 

F. L. Blathwayt ‘gives some interesting particulars of these 
(Zool., 1908, p. 450). 

NESTING OF THE ScAup-Duck In Scottanp.—Correction.— 
The nest found by Captain (now Colonel) R. Sandeman and 
Mr. Heatley Noble was in Sutherlandshire, as mentioned on 
page 85 (supra), and not in Speyside, as stated by Mr. P. H. 
Bahr on page 211. 

(1 Te] 
FA i - mm 
iiiifee =\\inip | 
he oe 
Qe) 886i rie bd x 
F 54) : ; —— 

Bird-Hunting through Wild Europe. By R. B. Lodge. 
Illustrated. R. Culley. 7s. 6d. net. 

In this book Mr. R. B. Lodge, who will be well-known to 
most of our readers as a successful bird-photographer, describes 
his recent experiences in Spain and the Balkans. 

In Albania and Montenegro especially the author had to 
undertake much travelling in a decidedly difficult country 
before he was able to find the birds he was particularly in 
search of, consequently, his time was limited for making obser- 
vations on the habits of the birds he met. Nevertheless there 
is a good deal in the book which will interest the student of 
British birds, because Mr. Lodge was fortunate enough to 
see and photograph, in their breeding haunts, many species 
which very rarely wander to this country. Herons (he was 
successful in photographing the rare Ardea alba at its nest) 
and birds of prey seem to have engaged Mr. Lodge’s chief 
attention, and his list of successful photographs of these birds 
is remarkable. We may here mention that in making the 
statement on p. 210 that the Common Bittern’s nest has not 
been photographed, Mr. Lodge has overlooked Mr. Wade’s 
successful photographs already published in this Magazine 
(Vol. I., p. 329). 

The simply-told narrative of the author’s experiences and 
adventures is well worth reading, while the photographs, as 
we should expect, are both numerous and excellent. The 
book is nicely got up and well printed, but a tint of an 
extremely inartistic yellow has been printed under some of the 
best pictures, and forming a wide frame gives a most dis- 
pleasing effect, and altogether spoils these really beautiful 


FEBRUARY 1, : Vol. Hl. 
1909. ar if No. 9. 

> ie 

NAUMANN (J. F.). “ Naturgeschichte der Vogel Mitteleuropas. a Neubear- ia 
beitet von Prof. R. Blasius, W. Blasius, R. Buri und herausgegeben yon 
Carl R. Hennicke. Tubilaums-Prachtaysgabe. ; 
well-known Bird Painter J. G. Keulemans, Bruno Geisler, E. de en 

and others. 
12 Vols.. Folio, Dresden, 1896—1904. 
Bound in half cloth, £6 10s. net. Bound in half morocco, £8 8s. net. 
A copy of this Werk in cloth was aes ly sole ace bys Auction at Messrs. Hodgsen's 

alerocoms for 

WILLIAMS & NORGATE, 14, Tae ‘Street, Covent Garden, London, W.C: 


Naturalists’ Camera, 
1907, MODEL, 
far Telephoto. or Oneary LENSES. 

Lenses are used 

by the most 
skilled Bird 


The following ave 
Specially recommended : 

THE STIGMATIC SERIES Il. F/6 (Convertible. 

(A Rapid Long Focus Lens at a Moderate Price.) 
High or Moderate Power Telephoto Lenses (Original Make). 
We are Specialists in Cameras and Apparatus for Photo- sire A 


J. H. DALLMEYER, Limitep, beNziL ap., 

Showrooms: 25, NEWMAN Sm, we. NEASDEN, LONDON, NW, 


Established 1 760. 


Ineluding a fine Specimen of a GREAT AUK’S EGG, a 

Catalogue and all Particulars of 

“J. C. STEVENS, 38, King Street, Covent Garden, Landon ie 


PeeeeD BY HH. F. WITHERBY, F.Z5.,, M.B.O.U. 
peeIsSlTED BY W. P. PYCRAFT, A.LS., M.B.0.U. 

ContTENTS OF NuMBER 9, VoL. II. FEBRUARY 1, 1909. 

Field Notes on the ‘‘ Powder-Down” ot the Heron, by 

J. M. Dewar : .. Page 285 
Some Early British Ornithologists and their Wor ks, by 

Mow. Mullens, MA, LEM; M.B.0o.0. — VIT. —John 

Ray (1627—1705) and Francis Willughby (1635—1672). 

(Plate VI.) . on a Pe 290 
Bird-Life in a Spring Snowstorm, by the Rev. A. Ellison, 
M.A., B.D., M.B.O.U, 301 

On the More Important Additions to our - Knowledge of 

British Birds since 1899, by H. F. Witherby and N. F. 

Ticehurst. Part XVII.—(continued from page 270) .. 305 
Notes :—Wood-Pigeon Diphtheria (Eds.). Unusual Birds 

in Hertfordshire (Hon. L. W. Rothschild, Ph.D., M.P.). 

Song-Thrush’s Nest in December (H. W. Robinson). 

Eversmann’s Warbler (Phylloscopus borealis) at Fair 

Isle (H. F, W.). Little Owl in Hampshire (A. W. 

Marriage). Montagu’s Harrier in Ireland (R. J. 

Ussher). Iceland Falcon in Scotland (Fred. Smalley). 

Food of the Red-Breasted Merganser (H, W. Robinson), 

Smew in Montgomeryshire (H. E. Forrest). Red 

Variety (P. montana) of the Common Partridge (C. 

Ingram). The Average Weight of Snipe (Rev. Maurice 

C. H. Bird). Pomatorhine Skua in Lancashire (Fred. 

Smalley). Two Norfolk Levantine Shearwaters (H. F. 

Witherby). Short Notes .. Az see a 309 
Review :—The Food of Some British Birds ¥ fe 315 

THE Heron preens its plumage comparatively seldom, 
and in this respect it differs from the majority of British 
birds, which may be seen to do so at least once every day. 
A summary is here given of observations which were made 
in the autumn of 1907, after I had been on the look-out 
during some half-a-dozen years for a Heron in the act of 
attending to its plumage. 
September 20th—a calm, sunny day. Two Herons 
perched on a log-fence, and a third near them on grass 


at the edge of a meadow. They faced the south and 
were preening their feathers at 10 a.m., when first I saw 
them. From the shelter of a wood about fifty yards away 
I could see the bird on the grass, but not the other two 
without risk of exposure. Ruffling out its plumage, 
the Heron separated the right wing from the body and 
insinuated the bill under the feathers in, as nearly as I 
could judge, the position of the right breast powder-patch, 
where it rubbed the bill slowly up and down, applying 
the sides, the upper and the lower surfaces. It withdrew 
the bill and preened the breast in the ordinary way, 
leisurely drawing the bill among the feathers, biting at 
their bases, and brushing them on both surfaces. With 
intervals of rest and watching for signs of danger, it 
preened its plumage, and had frequent recourse to the 
areas of the powder-downs, where the movements of the 
bill were always of the nature of a gentle to and fro 
rubbing, directed to the whole surface of the bill. 
Occasionally after preening it rubbed the bill by applying 
the adjacent surfaces of two toes, and drawing them slowly 
downwards over the bill. Before beginning to preen 
again it rubbed the bill in one of the powder-downs. The 
neck, breast, and ventral feathers received the most 
attention, and the Heron spread the wings one at a time 
and drew the bill downwards between each pair of remiges. 
Then I noticed for the first time that the bill was coloured 
pale blue, and had a dull appearance. On looking up 
cautiously at the Herons on the fence I saw that their 
bills were blue also, while the bill of a Heron which was 
watching for food in sedge behind the three had a yellow- 
ish colour. When the preening was finished the plumage 
was fluffed out very much, and the bird stood erect with 
its neck fully outstretched. The feathers hung loosely 
in frills round the neck, across the breast, and encircling 
each leg. The wings were allowed to fall downwards 
and outwards from the shoulders, while the tips remained 
crossed over the tail. Having completed its arrange- 
ments it indulged in an unmistakable yawn. It stood 


thus for fully half-an-hour, in the warm sunshine, without 
a movement except the occasional turning of its head, as 
it surveyed the neighbourhood. About noon a pony which, 
as I thought, had been watching the Herons for some time 
ran across the field and drove them away. Before they 
went I noticed that their bills were still bluish in colour. 

October Ist—mild, sunny weather. Six Herons in 
the sedge. Two came into the meadow and for a while 
preened desultorily. The bill of each bird was yellowish 
in colour. One bird stood in the usual attitude, without 
shaking out its plumage, and at intervals smoothed 
feathers here and there without having recourse to the 
powder-downs. Its bill remained yellow. The second 
bird began by shaking out its plumage to a marked degree 
of fulness. Then it pressed its bill into the region of the 
right breast powder-down and rubbed the bill up and 
down gently. After preening a few feathers on the breast 
it devoted its attention to the right wing, where it preened 
the coverts, especially the lower, and drew its bill over 
and among the remiges of the half-opened wing. The 
left wing was preened less carefully. It was sunny then, 
and at intervals the Heron held out its wings horizontally, 
as Cormorants do. The wings trembled visibly at these 
times, and the bird soon let them fall, as if tired. When 
the bill was lifted from the powder-down the lower 
mandible alone was of a bluish colour and, in the case of 
the under coverts which were turned towards me, the 
bill was introduced below each feather at the outer 
border and drawn to the tip, so that the under-surface 
of the bill came into contact with the under-surface of 
each feather. This bird shook its bill vigorously sidewise 
at times as if to get rid of something. 

October 4th—a calm, sunny day. A Heron which had 
been watching for food in the estuary stepped out of the 
water and walked slowly some way over the sands. There 
it shook itself so as to fluff out the plumage. At that 
time the bill had a shining appearance, and was of a straw- 
yellow colour. The Heron pressed its bill into the region 


of the breast powder-downs and rubbed it gently up and 
down. When the bill was withdrawn the lower mandible 
was seen to have a dull bluish-white appearance against 
the dark background of muddy sand. It preened the 
feathers of the foreneck and breast, drawing out each long 
feather by a slow movement of the bill from base to apex 
and arranging the feathers parallel to one another. It 
smoothed the anterior margins of the wings, and went 
gradually over the whole of the lower plumage, the 
shoulders and the wing coverts. During this lengthy 
operation it had frequent recourse to the breast powder- 
downs and to the inguinal areas latterly. The bill 
gradually became yellow and glistening during the preen- 
ing of the feathers, and after being in the region of a 
powder-down a bluish-white colour appeared by contrast. 
At the end of the general preening the Heron pressed the 
bill into the region of the right breast powder-patch, 
and rubbed the bill slowly up and down about twenty 
times, the greatest number of times I had seen yet at a 
single application. When the bill emerged its dull, blue- 
white appearance was plain. Thus dusted, the Heron 
applied its fore-neck and under mandible to the outer 
surface of the right wing, beginning at the shoulder and 
drawing the neck and bill gently over the coverts towards 
the remiges four or five times. When this was done the 
bill was bright yellow in colour and glistening in appear- 
ance. After some further arranging of the feathers on 
the anterior margin of the right wing, the Heron drew 
in its plumage and walked back to the channel. 
October 25th—mild and sunny. Two Herons alighted 
in a pool on the shore and, in a little while, began to preen. 
Their actions were similar to those already described. 
Several times one of them reached over to the area of the 
right femoral powder-patch and rubbed its bill there. 
Once or twice they dipped their bills in the sea-water 
before preening the feathers. They spent about half-an- 
hour at this occupation and then went inland. Their 
bills were yellowish in colour when they came. During 


their stay the bill of the bird which had been applied to 
the powder-patches so much became light blue in colour, 
and remained so, while the other’s bill was yellowish in 
colour, streaked at times with blue. 

November 18th—a calm sunny day. A Heron perched 
on the same fence, facing the south and with a fairly 
warm sun shining on it. For about half-an-hour it preened 
in a leisurely manner. At first the bill was yellow, and 
yellow it remained. The Heron attended to the plumage 
on the breast, the legs, the shoulders, and especially the 
neck. It worked with the point of the bil) at the bases 
of the feathers, and then drew it among them to their 
tips. At no time was the flat of the bill used, nor did 
“rubbing ” occur, and I did not see the bill once in the 
areas of the powder-downs. 

I had in mind two sources of error in these observations : 
first, in determining the colour of the bill, and, secondly, 
in estimating the relative importance of the powder-downs 
to the general toilet.. The colours remained constant 
when the light was reflected from the bill at various angles, 
and at equal and different distances from two or more 
birds. Lately I had an opportunity of examining a 
Heron not long dead, and found that the bill was coated 
readily with the powder, and while the blue colour was not 
displayed prominently with the bird in the hand, it 
became much more distinct when looked at from any 
distance within reasonable limits. ‘“‘ Rubbing ” may be 
the ordinary way of treating the powder-down patches. 
On this point more observation is necessary, but con- 
sidering the sequence of events as I have outlined them, 
we may suppose that the powder is carried to other parts 
of the body by means of the bill. On the dead bird, 
after making some of the wing feathers ragged, I found 
it easier to mat the rami with the aid of the powder than 
without such help, and the powder has the further merit 
of rendering the plumage highly waterproof, which is no 
small advantage to a wading bird, whose plumes, in the 
absence of powder, easily become draggled with wet. 

( 290 ) 



W. HE. MULLENS) (i:4:; nae, a eae 

WILLUGHBY (1685—1672). 
(PratTE Vi.) 

THE names of John Ray and Francis Willughby, the 
founders of scientific ornithology in this country, must 
ever be held in equal honour and esteem. Of very 
different origin—Willughby being a country gentleman 
of means, descended from a long line of illustrious 
ancestors, and Ray the poor son of a village blacksmith— 
a common devotion to the study of natural history made 
them close friends and zealous fellow workers. ‘Together 
they studied, together they travelled, and together they 
collected.”’ To separate their joint work or to credit 
one with a greater share in devising the scientific classi- 
fication of the subjects they studied, is as impossible 
as it is invidious. The misfortune of Willughby’s pre- 
mature death, and the fact that his posthumous works 
were edited by his friend, and that the latter became not 
only an eminent ornithologist, but also world-famous 
as a botanist, have undoubtedly tended to obscure 
Willughby’s claim to an equal recognition. Had he, 
however, been spared to accomplish his allotted share 
of their joint labours he would undoubtedly have achieved 
as great a reputation as his famous friend. In the course 
of their investigations these two eminent men having 
become “ dissatisfied with the status of natural history, 
agreed to attempt a systematic description of the whole 
organic world,” in which their different parts were 
apportioned according to the following method, as is 
detailed by Dr. Derham from information he received 
when he visited John Ray at Black Notley in May, 1704 
(Memorials of Ray, p. 33): ‘‘ For these two gentlemen, 


finding the ‘ History of Nature’ very imperfect, had 
agreed between themselves, before their travels beyond 
sea, to reduce the several tribes of things to a method ; 
and to give accurate descriptions of the several species, 
from a strict view of them. And forasmuch as Mr. 
Willughby’s genius lay chiefly to animals, therefore he 
undertook the birds, beasts, fishes, and insects, as Mr. Ray 
did the vegetables. And how each of these two great 
men discharged his province, the world hath seen in their 
works ; which show that Mr. Ray lived to bring his part 
to great perfection ; and that Mr. Willughby carried his 
as far as the utmost application and diligence of a short 
life could enable him.” The period in which Ray and 
Willughby flourished is justly described by Linnzeus as 
the dawn of the golden age in natural history. Before 
their great work was undertaken, ornithology as a science 
could scarcely be said to exist. It is true that an 
Englishman, Edward Wootton (1492-1555), had in a 
folio work entitled :— 

Edoardi Wotto- / ni Oxoniensis de / Differentis Ani- / 
malium Libri / Decem. / Ad Sereniss. Angliae Regem / 
Edoardum VI. / ... . itemque singulae eorum partes 
recensentur, . . . . Lutetiae Parisiorum / apud 
Vascosanum. / M.D.LII. / Cum privilegio Regis. 
made some attempt at a systematic arrangement of 
birds, but he did not profess to do more than give a 
compilation from the classical authors, while the standard 
authorities of the day, Gesner and Aldrovandus, were 
full of obscurity and mistakes. 

In England itself the study of zoology had hitherto 
received but scant attention, hence “ observing in this 
busie and inquisitive age the History of Animals alone 
to have been in a great measure neglected by English men 
(for that since Turner* and Mouffett none that I know 
of have performed anything worthy of commendation). 
... . Our main design was to illustrate the History of 

* William Turner (1500-1568), author of ‘* Avium Historia.” 
+ Thomas Mouffet (1553-1604), author of ‘ Insectorum Theatrum.”’ 


Birds, which is (as we said before of Animals in general) 
in many particulars confused and obscure, by so 
accurately describing each kind, and observing their 
Characteristics and distinctive notes, that the Reader 
might be sure of our meaning, and upon comparing any 
Bird with our description not fail in discerning whether 
it be the described or no. Nor will it be difficult to find 
out any unknown Bird that shall be offered: for Com- 
paring it with the Tables first the Characteristic notes of 
the genus’s from the highest or first downward will easily 
guide him to the lowest genus ; among the species whereof, 
being not many, by comparing it also with the several 
descriptions the Bird may soon be found” (Preface to 
the Ornithology). 

John Ray, the son of Roger and Elizabeth Ray, was 
born in the parish of Black Notley, in Essex, in the 
autumn of 1627, possibly on November 29th; and was 
baptized on December 6th of that same year. The date 
of Ray’s birth and baptism have proved a stumbling 
block to most of his biographers. This arises from the 
coincidence that on the same page of the parish register 
at Black Notley are recorded the baptisms of two John 
Rays, in the successive years of 1627 and 1628, as will be 
seen from the reproduction of these entries here ae 
They run as follows :— 

(1627) John [son] of Roger and Elizabeth Ray Decem- 
ber 6. 

(1628) John son of Thomas and Dorothie Wray bapt. 
June 29:7 

The latter of these two entries has apparently been 
mistaken as referring to John Ray the naturalist. William 
Derham, in his ‘Select Remains and Life of Ray” * 
gives the date of Ray’s birth as November 29th, 1628, 
and then in a footnote informs us that on “‘ searching the 
parish registers”? it was discovered that “he was 
baptized on the 29th of June, 1628; consequently the 

* Included in the “Memorials of John Ray.’? London, 1846, 
1 vol., 8vo. 



Pen CTS Were Oe est 


Middleton n the County of Warwick F{g; 

Fellow of the Royvaz Socrery. 

Ju Thee Books. 

Wherein All the 



Being reduced into a Mert uo futable to their Natures, 
are accurately defcribed. 

The Defcriptions illuftrated by moft ai FEDS nearly refembling 
the live Bi R Ds, Engraven in LXXVIII Copper Plates. 

Tranflated into Englifh, and enlarged with many Additions 

throughout the whole Work. 

To which are added, 

Three Confiderable DISCOURSES, 

fT, Ofthe Artof Fowtinc: Witha Defcription 
of feveral Ne rs intwo large Copper Plates. 

“II. OF the Ordering of Stncine Birops. 
Of Fatrconry. 

FOHN_RAY, Fellow of the Royvar Socrery. 

Pfalm 104. 24. 

How manifold are thy works,O Lord? In wifdom haft thon made them all : The Earth is 
full of thy riobes. 


Printed by A.C. for Jobn Martyn, Printer to the Royal Society, at the Bell in 
St. Paxls Church-Yard, MDCLXXVIIL 




a A 

= 2 


me 2, Fe. ae | 



aa od 







above date, as the supposed one of his birth, is incorrect.” 
Acting on this ingenious hypothesis, Ray’s subsequent 
biographers have fixed his birth on November 29th, 
1627, and his baptism on June 29th, 1628.* 

Ray was the son of the village blacksmith, and the 
house which now stands opposite the forge in Black 
Notley is said to have been his birthplace. Although of 
humble origin. he received an excellent education : first 
at the Grammar School in the neighbouring town of 
Braintree, and afterwards at St. Catherine’s Hall (where 
he only remained for a short time), and Trinity College, 
Cambridge. At Trinity he obtained a fellowship in 1649, 
and afterwards filled many important offices in his College. 
Ray remained at Cambridge for several years. From 
the University he commenced his earlier “ Itineraries,” 
journeys which he undertook for the sake of observation 
and the collection of plants, and of which he kept an 
account. The first of these he undertook alone in 1658, but 
in many of the subsequent ones he was accompanied by 
Francis Willughby, proceeding on different occasions 
as far as Scotland and Cornwall. At Cambridge, Ray 
published the first of his numerous works, a small 8vo 
volume entitled ‘“‘Catalogus Plantarum Circa Canta- 
brigiam nascentium.’” This appeared in 1660, and in 
the same year Ray entered into holy orders. T'wo years 
later his connection with his College came to an end. 
Refusing to subscribe to the “ Act of Uniformity ” of 
1662, he resigned his fellowship, and being now at greater 
liberty he resolved to pursue his studies in Natural history 
still more ardently, and for that purpose to extend his 
travels beyond the confines of his own country. 

Accordingly in the spring of 1663, Ray, with two oi 
his pupils,t and accompanied by Willughby, left England 
for France, and after ‘‘ passing through divers parts of 

* Vide art. ‘“‘ Dict. Nat. Biogr.” ‘Ray, John (1627-1705), naturalist, 
was born at Black Notley, near Braintree, Es-ex, probably on 
29th Nov., 1627. He was baptized on 29th June, 1628.” 

+ Mr. Skippon (afterwards Sir Philip) and Mr. N. Bacon. 


Europe ”’ returned to this country in 1665, having parted 
company from Willughby during the latter part of the 
journey. On his return to his native country, Ray 
devoted his serious attention (as he wrote to Dr. Martin 
Lister) to “ gathering up into a catalogue all such plants 
as I had found at any time growing wild in England 
. . . . possibly one day they may see the light : at present 
the world is glutted with Dr. Merrett’s bungling ‘ Pinax.’ * 
[ resolve never to put out anything which is not as perfect 

as it is possible for me to make it.”’ These labours bore 
fruit in after years, when Ray published his “‘ Catalogus 
Plantarum Angliae,’ and his yet more famous 

“Synopsis Methodica Stirpium Britannicarum,” the 
second edition of which, published in 1696, set the seal 
on his fame as a botanist. In 1667 Ray was persuaded 
to become a Fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1670 
he changed the spelling of his name, which he had hitherto 
written Wray, by dropping the initial “* W,” thus return- 
ing, as he informed his correspondent Martin Lister, in 
a letter written August 22nd, 1670, to the style used by 
his ancestors. In 1672 Ray suffered a great blow by the 
death of his intimate friend and companion, Francis 
Willughby, who died in this year “‘to the infinite and 
unspeakable loss and grief of myself, his friends, and all 
good men.” To Ray’s guardianship Willughby com- 
mitted his two sons, and further left. him an annuity of 
sixty pounds, which formed his chief means of support 
during the remainder of his life. Faithful to his trust, 
Ray now took up his residence at Middleton Hall, the 
Warwickshire seat of his late benefactor, and in 1673 
he was married to Margaret Oakley, in Middleton Church. 
The year 1674 saw the publication of Ray’s first contri- 
bution to ornithology, entitled :— 

A / Collection of English Words / not generally used 
.... / and catalogues of English Birds / and Fishes 
i. / London... 1674-4 vol” ane 

* «Pinax Rerum,” by Christopher Merrett. London, 1666, 
1 vol., 8vo. 

JOHN Ray. 

(From the Engraving by H. Meyer, after a Picture in the British Museum.) 

{‘ oF oe Kaede phd ee is cs shen Ke. cor 4 » the” eee 
f r 

a tan 

. “eh, we ee oe {é@ . 
ied ft ‘of Linky a oh on oe , 
Mins sn opps ae oe 9 oe 
of {lei 07 af rit, a as i i 

Dy ie ee : 
Clay ¢ Eas ct vy saat hy Gul 
| ge Y Vary Long. Soop. 

‘ Nar hishiade Y- ‘A. 3. 
Ui 1g Se Pocket A ect ‘ay Vee 2B 
Aagio” £, Ame Sofas bs 

Aig: 26. 

oF Cag Y yy fe 
pote ge 9 a se Llop J3 Fe 
sie 1> Gh rh tye : sh, none aces if M imit fad Dufre ot 
ee | Bast Raven Ray Ea) eta « o ‘ “Sh 

i Mee ee ’ oes a. 7% (he © Frannie Serco E 
nae Pog pongo login Mealy ae 

i Digs gs aS | woe rp 

x. Ss ate fe oe hi r fi Cera © 

yee is “augln e re ad De. 4 Wat Lets. ca 

é& . oh “ur he. Ce pf 

o & 

ese Wares; 30 

Mire " t GBoehopl: § ng a 
t Wid lees «ieee yom fi PORE CT ey g 
' [nf Sam06 6 Sans Puybe he. “fee Sony 
sin [Ae ee ee ee 

Poitier, 6p po ting wit La : 
! evi oy ie oe Re as, Sr go tik Shi Lome 

does op isha! efoF Re oF osx hae ery) 

£ Tagan ss e > sb of A ©. els, ‘in 
+4 « nts Prrea we Ot nr - * 
§ trod buy Av? fos bv. <teny het v fa. ee a 
} rE wets " 2 ‘£ 

2 Pom coo frm POS 4 
ef BM Nes oN E Sma hd ue 

Me : i ae ~ (629 | 
4 a P of 

Entry in Parish Register of John Ray’s Baptism, 
and that of another John Ray. 


The catalogue of Birds, which was an imperfect one, 
was omitted in subsequent editions, and Ray now com- 
menced to engage himself on a far more important work, 
the arrangement and _ publication of the notes and 
observations about birds which had _ been left by 
Willughby as his share of their undertaking in the study 
of natural history. This posthumous work of Willughby’s 
Ray published in Latin in 1676, under the title 
“ Ornithologia libri Tres,” the English edition of the 
same appearing in 1678. This, the well-known 
“ Ornithology of Francis Willughby,” was edited by Ray 
“with large editions.” A facsimile of the title-page is 
here given, the collation of the book being: 1 vol. folio ; 
pee t2.0un =. pp. 441: =; pp. 6, Index. 2) "plates of 
fowling and LXXXVIII. of birds.* A catalogue of 
English birds appears on pp. 21-28, some 190 species in 
all being mentioned. How much original matter Ray 
added to Willughby’s labours it is impossible exactly to 
determine, but it was evidently not inconsiderable, for 
not only did he, as he tells us in his preface, add the 
“descriptions and histories of those [birds] that were 
wanting,”’ these being principally those recently discovered 
in the Indies and the New World, but he also added a 
good deal of information which he received from certain 
of his fellow-countrymen, notably from Sir Thomas 
Browne, of Norwich, who “frankly communicated the 
Drafts of several rare Birds, with some brief notes and 
descriptions of them,” and also from Mr. Jessop and Sir 
Philip Skippon. His most important assistance, 
however, came from Mr. Ralph Johnson, of Brignal, in 
Yorkshire, who is described by Ray as ‘“‘a person of 
singular skill in Zoology, especially the History of Birds,” 
and who appears to have been not only an observer of 
nature far in advance of his time, but also to have in- 

* The engravings which were executed at the expense of Mrs. 
Willughby, are poor, and Ray laments that although he employed 
good workmen the great distance he was from London necessitated 
all directions and descriptions passing by letter. and observes that “in 
many Sculps they have not satisfied me.”’ 


vented a “method of Birds’ which was freely used by 
Ray ‘in the divisions and characteristic notes of the 
genera.” In 1676 Ray left Middleton Hall, his two young 
pupils having ceased to be under his tuition, and removed 
to Falborne Hall, near Black Notley, the residence. of 
Mr. Edward Bullock, to whose son Ray probably acted 
as tutor, and to whom he dedicated the “ Stirpium 
EKuropeanarum ... . Sylloge” in 1694. 

In 1678 Elizabeth Ray, the naturalist’s mother, died, 
and Ray then took up his abode at her house on 
‘* Dewlands,”’ in Black Notley, where, said he, “‘ I intend, 
God willing, to settle for the short pittance of time I have 
yet to live in this world.” Ray now settled down to un- 
interrupted work, and in 1682 published his *‘ Methodus 
Plantarum nova,” in which he proposed a 
‘new method of classifying plants, which when altered and 
amended as it subsequently was by himself at a later period, 
unquestionably formed the basis of that method which under 
the name of the system of Jussieu is universally received at 
the present day.” 

In addition to his own numerous labours Ray also 
continued to deal with the mass of material left to him 
by his friend, Francis Willughby, and in 1686 he published 
the ‘‘ Historia Piscium,’ 1 vol. folio, which “‘ he had 
extracted out of Mr. Willughby’s papers, revised, supplied, 
methodized and fitted for the press.”” This Ichthyology 
was, by the assistance of Bishop, Fell, printed at Oxford, 
the Royal Society defraying the expense. The “ History 
of Fishes”? was, as Ray laments in a letter to his friend, 
Dr. Tancred Robinson, far from being as complete as it 
should have been, most of the notes which he and 
Willughby had made in the course of their travels having 
been mislaid.* 

It is here quite impossible to enumerate all the works 
which came year after year from Ray’s pen; a list of 
them will be found in the ‘‘ Memorials of Ray ” (p. 111). 

* This refers to their joint notes; of Willughby’s notes Ray 
writes ‘‘ it is almost impossible to procure a sight of them.” 


Ray’s final contribution to ornithology was the “‘ Synopsis 
Methodica Avium,’ which was completed in 1694, but 
not published till after his death in 1713. “In this 
synopsis Mr. Ray added many species of birds and fishes 
which were omitted in Mr. Willughby’s histories of 
them,” and by way of a supplement added a short 
catalogue with figures of “Avium Maderaspatanarum,”’ 
or “Indian Birds about Fort St. George,’ compiled by 
James Petiver (1663-1718), and of interest as being “ the 
first attempt to catalogue the Birds of any part of the 
British possessions in India ”’ (cf. Newton, Dict. of Birds, 
Introduction, p. 7). 

Ray’s health now began to fail, and in 1704 he passed 
away at Black Notley “in a house of his own building ” 
called ‘‘ Dewlands ” (destroyed by fire in 1900). He lies 
buried in the churchyard of his native parish, where his 
sadly neglected grave requires prompt attention, if the 
several inscriptions that his monument bears are to remain 
decipherable. | 

Of Ray’s influence on natural history it is impossible 
to say too much. His works on zoology, in the words of 
Cuvier, ““ may be considered as the foundation of modern 
zoology,’ and by Haller he was termed “the greatest 
botanist in the memory of man.” 

Of the short but busy life of Francis Willughby it is 
necessary to say but little. He was born in 1635, the 
only son of Sir Francis Willughby, Knt., of Middleton Hall, 
Warwickshire. At the age of seventeen he became a 
fellow Commoner of Trinity College, Cambridge, and there 
formed the acquaintance of John Ray, with whose labours 
in natural history his name will ever be associated. It 
has been generally asserted that Willughby was Ray’s 
pupil at the University, but what little evidence exists 
on the matter is rather against this supposition. In 1655 
Willughby took his degree as B.A., and proceeded M.A. 
in 1659. That he had early begun to assist Ray in his 
work is evident from the allusions in the latter’s 
“Catalogus Plantarum Circa Cantabrigiam,’’ which was 


published in 1660. In the preface to that work Ray 
writes as follows :— 

‘“ Jam quoniam honestum est fateri per quos profeceris, 
generossimi Juvenes, D. Franciscus Willughby et D. Petrus 
Courthorpe * Armigeri, natalium splendore ingenii sublimitate. 
Suavite morum, fide, virtute illustres, non rei duntaxat 
herbariae callentissimi, sed in omni literarum genere versa- 
tissimi, amici nostri, plurimum honorandi, non sunt a nobis 
silentio transmuttendi, ni ingrati & arrogantes esse velimus. 
Horum opera nos saepius usos & ab his non mediocriter 
adpitos fuisse in hoc opusculo, Concinnando, libere & ingenue 

In 1663 Willughby, who had already accompanied Ray 
in some of his expeditions in Great Britain, went with 
him on his journey to the continent, but they parted 
company the next year at Montpelier, and Willughby 
continued his journey through Spain alone. It should 
here be mentioned that Willughby’s name appeared as_ 
one of the original Fellows of the Royal Society on its 
incorporation in 1663-4. In 1665, on the death of his 
father, Willughby succeeded to the estates of Wollaton 
and Middleton, and in 1668 married Emma, daughter 
of Sir Thomas Bernard, by whom he had two sons and a 
daughter. His great devotion to work seems to have 
overtaxed his strength, and on December 22nd, 1670, 
Dr. Martin Lister, writing to Ray, says, “Il am very glad 
Mr. Willughby is near well again. Methinks he is very 
valetudinary, and you have often alarm’d me with his 
IllInesses.”” In the beginning of June, 1672, * he fell into 
a pleurisie which terminated in that kind of fever called 

He died on July 3rd, 1672, “to the immense grief of 
his friends and all good men that knew him, and the 
great loss of the commonwealth in general.’ Thus was 
frustrated his project of a voyage to the New World, 
“that he might perfect the History of Animals.” 

* Mr. Peter Courthorpe, of Danny, in Sussex; a friend and pupil of 

John Ray’s, to him Ray dedicated the ‘‘ Collection of English Words,” 
published in 1674. 



THe Rev. A. ELLISON, M.a., B.D., M.B.O.U. 

THE series of snowstorms which visited nearly all parts 
of the British Islands in the fourth week of April, 1908, 
was probably unprecedented for so late a date in the 
spring. Coming at the very height of the spring migra- 
tion, and at a time when nearly all our resident birds 
were breeding, the result must have been, for the time 
at least, extremely disastrous ; and it furnished a good 
illustration both of the calamities to which wild creatures 
may be exposed, and also of Nature’s wonderful recuper- 
ative powers. 

In mid-Hertfordshire the season, though cold and 
changeable, was not on the whole unfavourable to bird- 
life up to April 18th. The spring, however, was distinctly 
backward. Chiffchaffs had appeared in their usual 
numbers by April Ist. Willow-Warblers and Swallows 
were first observed on the 15th, but only one or two; 
the majority had not come; while the great body of 
April migrants still held back, waiting for kinder condi- 
tions. But resident birds were, perhaps, a week late on 
the average in breeding, not more. An early Robin had 
young well advanced on April 15th. Several others had 
hatched out by the 22nd. I knew of a good number 
of Lapwings’ nests with incubated eggs between those 
two dates ; one had been hatched off on the 22nd, while 
every hedge or plantation was full of nests of Thrush or 
Blackbird with eggs or callow young. 

Heavy snow showers had occurred, sufficient to whiten 
the country, on the 19th and 20th, with sharp frosts 
at night; but not enough to cause any serious danger 
to bird-life. However, early in the afternoon of the 
23rd a cold rain gave place to snow, which increased to 
a blizzard, and lasted without cessation for sixteen hours. 
On the morning of the 24th the country was covered 
with snow to an average of eight inches in depth, while 


in many lanes the northerly gale had heaped up drifts 
of three or four feet. Temperature had fallen to 28°, 
the result being that the snow, which at first had partially 
thawed, had frozen and clung to trees and bushes to such 
an extent as to break down large branches, or to bend 
shrubs prostrate to the ground. Even at noon it still 
froze in the shade, and roofs and stacks, where the sun 
did not reach, were decorated with long fringes of 

What the effect of such an occurrence was upon bird- 
life it was not easy fully to ascertain. But there can 
be little doubt that young birds which had recently left 
their nests for the most part perished. I saw no trace, 
after the snow, of broods of young Thrushes which had 
left the nest just before. A great many nestlings also 
perished, but no inconsiderable number survived, where 
the nests were in sheltered situations. But it must 
have been extremely difficult for the parents to feed them 
during the two days when the ground was snow-covered. 

However, the manner in which many nests escaped 
was truly marvellous, and indicated a wonderful devotion 
and intelligence on the part of their owners. Lapwings’ 
nests, which, of all others, were as one would think, 
most exposed to the fury of the elements, passed through 
the ordeal uninjured. One, found by me on April 16th, 
with four eggs far advanced in incubation, had been 
hatched off on the 22nd, the day before the snowstorm. 
On the 27th I visited the spot, and, although I could not 
find the young, I felt convinced that they had survived 
from the clamorous cries of the parent birds whenever I 
approached the neighbourhood of the nest. 

A nest, with four eggs, in a neighbouring field, dis- 
covered on the 17th, was quite intact, the bird still 
sitting and the eggs warm. This clutch afterwards 
hatched off safely, and yet the nest must have been 
surrounded with snow six inches deep. The case of this 
nest would suggest that in the other instance, where the 
young had left the nest, they might have been kept 


together and covered by the parents, and so protected 
from the inclement conditions. But the question how 
they could have been fed is a difficult one. 

Early in April [ had found a Robin’s nest on a wayside 
bank. It was situated, not in a crevice, but on the flat 
ground at the top of the bank, under a thick tuft of old 
grass. It was at the extremity of a kind of tunnel, roofed 
over by some pieces of stick and the thick tangled grass. 

The Robin’s nest was at the top of the bank on the right hand of 
the photograph. 

On the 21st it contained six eggs, and I placed in it two 
more, from a deserted nest not far off, so that it contained © 
the large number of eight eggs. I had never yet seen the 
bird on the nest, and the eggs were cold and remained so, 
so that I thought the bird had deserted in consequence 
of my intermeddling in her domestic matters. On the 
23rd came the great snow, and the following morning the 
nest was buried under drifts from one to two feet deep. 
The snow had drifted through the hedge, and formed 


wreaths over the spot. Yet when I looked at the nest 
on the 29th, after the snow had disappeared, the bird 
was sitting, as if nothing had happened, and the eggs 
were slightly incubated. In due time all the eight eggs 
hatched out, and the young were safely reared. It is 
quite impossible that the bird can have sat on this nest 
during the snow. Indeed, the place was so thoroughly 
drifted over that I could not identify the exact situation 
of the nest. There was nothing but a wilderness of 
compact snow wreaths, and if the bird had been sitting 
she must have ‘been a prisoner for nearly three days. 
The eggs, remaining fresh, were protected by the thick 
roof formed by the grass tuft and sticks, from the super- 
incumbent snow; while the inherent warmth of the 
ground underneath kept them from being chilled or 
frozen. So soon as the snow was gone they were ready 
for incubation, and the bird returned to them. 

The rush of migrants which came as soon as the weather 
changed was most remarkable. On the 25th the Blackcap 
was singing in my garden, although the country was still 
snow-covered, and there were heavy snowstorms again 
that evening. On the 26th the call of the Wryneck was 
heard from the tall elms. But on the 28th the tempera- 
ture at last rose to 58°, and nearly all the summer birds 
appeared at once. Cuckoos were calling loudly, and 
the country seemed alive with Willow-Warblers in full 
song. Many Swallows were about, and the Sand-Martin 
colonies were in full force. Tree-Pipits were singing, 
and at 11 p.m. the songs of Nightingales could be heard 
in all directions. Encouraged by a summer temperature 
on the first two days of May, the Lesser Whitethroat, 
Swift, and Spotted Flycatcher were all up to time, on 
the 2nd, 3rd, and 6th of the month respectively. And 
at the end of the first week of May, the sycamore, beech, 
and other trees, which had been still bare at the close of 
April, were thick with leaves, while the general aspect 
of the country showed little trace of the wintry ordeal 
through which it had so lately passed. 

( 305) 


Part XVII. 
(Continued from page 270.) 

BLACK TERN Hydrochelidon nigra (L.). 8S. page 633. 

Scitty IsLEs.—Seen every now and then on the pools of 
Tresco in immature plumage in autumn, and sometimes in 
August. Seven were seen on St. Mary’s on April 10th, 1903, 
and four at Tresco on April 26th, 1905 (J. Clark and F. R. 
Rodd, Zool., 1906, p. 342). 

CoRNWALL.—A flock of twenty-five to thirty seen first on 
April 19th, 1901, frequented Marazion Marsh, near Penzance, 
for some days (A. W. H. Harvey, t.c., 1901, p. 188). Until 
the last few years, rarely recorded in spring, but since 1900 it 
has been observed every year in April (J. Clark and F. R. 
Rodd, t.c., 1906, p. 342). 

HAMPSHIRE.—T'wo immature birds were shot near Ringwood 
in August, 1905 (G. B. Corbin, é.c., 1905, p. 394). 

OxFORDSHIRE.—Mr. O. V. Aplin considers it may be an 
annual visitor to the Thames in this county (¢.c., 1903, p. 453). 
One was seen on June 26th, 1903, near Bampton (O. V. Aplin, 
t.c., 1905, p. 449). One was seen at Oxford on June 11th, 
1904 (cd., t.c., 1906, p. 447). 

DErRBy.—One was killed at Etwell in the late summer of 
1900 (F. C. R. Jourdain, t.c., 1902, p. 455), and another at 
Aston Hall on August 27th, 1908 (2d. in litt.). 

CHESHIRE.—Three in breeding plumage were seen at 
Budworth Mere on June 4th, 1900, and an immature bird was 
seen there on September 6th, 1903, and others on August 19th 
and 26th, 1905 (F. 8S. Graves, t.c., 1901, p. 188; C. Oldham, 
t.c., 1903, p. 393, 1905, p. 393). 

BRECONSHIRE.—I'wo were shot on Llangorse Lake in 1889 
(E. Cambridge Phillips, B. of Brecon, p. 134). 

NortH WALES.—Somewhat rare; met with chiefly on the 
estuaries (H. E. Forrest, Vert. fF. N. Wales, p. 369). 

IsLE or Man.—An immature specimen was shot on October 
15th, 1903, on Langness (P. G. Ralfe, Zool., 1903, p. 461). 

YORKSHIRE.—Not uncommon in spring and autumn (T. H. 
Nelson, B. of Yorks, p. 648). 


CUMBERLAND.—One was seen at Ravenglass on May 6th, 
1907 (H. W. Robinson, Field, 22, v1., 07). 

On the eastern side of England, south of Yorkshire, the 
Black Tern would appear by the records to be an annual bird 
of passage, and we have not thought it worth while to give 
the records. 

ScorLanp.—The following have been recorded in Scotland 
during the period under notice :—1899, August 7th, Forth, 
one; 1901, end of September, Tay, two; 1902, June 2nd, 
Tweed, several near Hawick ; 1904, September 7th, Midlothian, 
one at Gladhouse Reservoir; November 26th, East Lothian, 
one at Gullane ; 1908, May 30th, Tweed, one. 

WHITE-WINGED BLACK TERN Hydrochelidon leucoptera 
(Schinz). S. page 635. 

Norroitk.—Hight were seen on Breydon by Mr. Jary on 
April 22nd, 1901, and asingle bird on May 15th (J. H. Gurney, 
Zcol., 1902, p. 88). 

Kent.— Five were shot out of a small flock at Dungeness 
on May 29th, 1904 (N.F.T.). 

WHISKERED TERN JHydrochelidon hybrida (Pallas). 
S. page 637. 

Kent and Sussex.—An adult male was shot at Rye 
Harbour on August 9th, 1905, and is now in the Booth 
Museum. Four or five others were shot about the same time 
near Lydd and Pevensey (N.F.T.). 

CASPIAN TERN Sterna caspia Pall. 8S. page 641. 

NorFroLtk.—One was watched by Messrs. Patterson, Eldred, 
and Jary at Breydon on July 21st and 22nd, 1901 (J. H. 
Gurney, Zool., 1902, p. 91). One was seen on Breydon by 
Mr. G. Jary on July 24th, 1902 (id., t.c., 1903, p. 132, and 
A. Patterson, f.c., 1902, p. 391). 

Kent must for the present be struck out of the list of 
counties in which this bird has occurred, as Mr. J. H. Gurney’s 
record (é.c., 1887, p. 458) from Thompson’s ‘‘ Notebook of a 
Naturalist ” (p. 265) was based on a misreading of the name 
cantiaca for caspia. 

Norrs.—One at Caythorpe on May 17th, 1863 (J. Whitaker, 
B. of Notts, p. 279) does not seem to have been noted in the 
‘* Manual.” 

SANDWICH TERN Sterna cantiaca J. F. Gm. S. page 643. 

GUERNSEY.—‘‘ Fairly plentiful here [Guernsey], and I know 

places where it breeds’ (Gordon Dalgleish, Zool., 1903, p. 277). 
Scitty Istes.—In 1903 at least one pair hatched a brood, 


but the bird is no longer a regular breeder at Scilly (J. Clark 
and F. R. Rodd, t.c., 1906, p. 343). 

Lancs.—Mr. T. Hepburn could not find any on Walney 
Island in June, 1901 (é.c., 1902, p. 377). 

CUMBERLAND.—The Ravenglass colony is steadily increasing 
in numbers (C. Oldham, t.c., 1908, p. 165). 

NorFoLK.—‘“ Probably bred in Norfolk in 1893” (Vict. Hist. 

TRELAND.—A colony (twenty pairs were seen) was found on 
Lough Erne (co. Fermanagh) in 1900 (R. Warren, Jrish Nat., 
1900 (p. 220). A few nests were found by Mr. H.S. Gladstone 
on an island in Lough Conn (co. Mayo) in 1903, and in May, 
1906, a considerable colony (thirty-seven nests found) was 
discovered by Mr. Warren on another island in the same lough 
(R. Warren, Zool., 1906, p. 277). In 1906 two small colonies 
were found in co. Down (R. Patterson, /. Nat.. 1906, p. 192). 

ROSEATE TERN Sterne dougalli Mont. 8S. page 645. 

NORTHUMBERLAND.—Farne Islands.—In an article on the 
history and status of this species by Rev. F. L. Blathwayt 
(Zool., 1902, p. 52), it is stated that two pairs bred up to 1897. 
In 1898 five or six pairs were seen, but in 1899 only two pairs 
were reported ; while in 1900 it was thought that only one pair 
inhabited the Islands. 

NorFoLtK.—One seen at Blakeney Point and at Wells 
throughout May, June and July, 1902, and is thought to have 
paired with a Common Tern and nested. Its identity seems to 
have been fairly established (J. H. Gurney, t.c., 1903, p. 131). 
One seen at Blakeney on May 29th, 1903 (7d., t.c., 1904, p. 208). 

NortH Wates.—The colony on the Skerries has been 
considerably reduced, but steps have now been taken to pre- 
serve the birds. There is another colony, the locality of 
which is not divulged (H. E. Forrest, Vert. F. N. Wales, p. 
371), and the numbers here are well maintained (F. C. R. 
Jourdain, in litt.). 

IRELAND.—As a breeding species it seems to have ceased to 
exist. One ‘“‘ was shot on the coast of Connaught on August 
3rd, 1904” (R. J. Ussher, List of 1. Birds, p. 48). 

COMMON TERN Sterna fluviatilis Naum. S. page 647. 

SHETLAND.—Nesting in some numbers in 1901 for the first 
time (W. E. Clarke, Ann. S.N.H., 1902, p. 121). 

Farr Iste (Shetlands).—Numbers migrating on September 
Lith and 12th, 1906 (d.,t.c., L907, p. 79). 

Barra (Outer Hebrides).—Seen in summer in 1900 and 
1903 (i.c., 190Y, p. 143; 1903, p. 15; 1904, p. 216). There is 


apparently little previous evidence of its occurrence in the 
islands strictly included in the Outer Hebrides. 

[NoRFOLK.—One is said to have been picked up dead in 
January, 1906, on the edge of Thetford Warren (J. H. 
Gurney, Zool., 1907, p. 122).] 

LITTLE TERN Sterna minuta L. S. page 651. 

Sctitty Istanps.—Though it breeds in Cornwall, it appears 
to be only a casual visitor to the Scillies (J. Clark, Zool., 1906, 
p. 343). 

IsLE or Man.—A small colony was found in 1898 (P. Ralfe, 
t.c., 1899, p. 32). 

ScorLanp.—From Tay to Dee, common and increasing 
(J. A. Harvie-Brown, Fauna of Tuy Basin, p. 334). 

SHETLAND.—Six adults at Grutness Voe on September 20th, 
1900. Not previously recorded from Shetland (W. E. Clarke 
and TG. Laidlaw, Ann. S.N.H-:, 1901, p. 11L). 

OutER Hxesripes.—Barra.—Five pairs nesting on a small 
island in 1901 (W. L. MacGillivray, t.c., 1901, p. 237); also 
noted there in 1902-3, but since then has not been seen 
(N. B. Kinnear, ¢.c., 1907, p. 81; cf: also aniea, Vol. 1, pp: 
193 and 232). 

SOOTY TERN Sterna fuliginosa J. F. Gm. 8. page 653. 

SuFFoLK.—An adult in good plumage, which had apparently 
died from exhaustion, was found on the heathland between 
Thetford and Brandon, at the end of March or beginning of 
Apri!, 1900, by Messrs. J. Nunn and G. Mortimer. It was 
stuffed and remained wrongly identified until 1903, when 
Mr. W. G. Clarke saw it and identified it as a Sooty Tern, 
which was confirmed by Mr. T. Southwell (W. G. Clarke, 
Zool., 1903, p. 393). 

Lancs.—One was picked up alive, but in an exhausted 
condition,¥in the early morning, on October 9th, 1901, in a 
street in Hulme, near Manchester (H. Saunders, Bull. B.O.C., 
XII., p. 26; see also C. Oldham, Zool., 1902, p. 355). 

These are the fourth and fifth examples recorded in this 
country of this species. 

NODDY TERN Anous stolidus (L.). 8. page 655. 

Mr. R. J. Ussher’s reasons, as expressed in his lately pub- 
lished ‘‘ List of Irish Birds,” for excluding this bird from the 
British avifauna, have already been given (see antea, p. 248). 
For further details with regard to the specimen said to 
have been shot on the Dee marshes see Coward and Oldham, 
‘‘ Birds of Cheshire,” p. 229. 

(To be continued.) 


We would remind our readers that the schedules relating to 
this enquiry, which were attached to the November number 
of BririsH Birps, should be filled in and posted to us by 
March Ist. We may here reiterate the hope expressed on 
page 199, that. our readers will make such a response to the 
request for information that the enquiry may be made really 
useful. We cannot remind observers too often that negative 
evidence which affects the distribution either of the birds or 
the disease is of equal importance to positive evidence.—EDs. 

Lone-TAILED Duck (Harelda glacialis). 

An immature male Long-tailed Duck was shot on the 
reservoirs at Tring on November 20th, 1908. We have 
previously had one visit from this species, an adult ¢ shot 
November 12th, 1906. 

PALLAS’s SAND-GROUSE (Syrrhaptes paradoxus). 

On December Ist I saw a flock of seven or eight Pallas’s 
Sand-Grouse near Tring (Parish of Buckland). We were 
shooting pheasants, and the Sand-Grouse rose out of a turnip 

SHAG (Phalacrocorax graculus). 

On October 22nd, 1908, a Shag, the first recorded for 

Hertfordshire, was shot on Tring reservoirs. 

BrrrERN (Botaurus stellaris). 

A Bittern stayed on the reservoir for ten davs, but left last 
week (January 14th, 1909). It allowed a keeper to stand 
watching it within three yards for some time. 

BLACK-NECKED GREBE (Podicipes nigricollis). 

A female and a young male were shot on Tring reservoirs 
on November 2lst and 24th, 1908. A female was shot on 
November 24th, 1903. L. W. Boruscumn. 


On December 17th, 1908, a Song-Thrush’s nest containing 
two newly-laid eggs was found at Forton, near Lancaster. 
H. W. Rosryson. 



On September 28th, 1908, while Mr. W. Eagle Clarke was 
pursuing his investigations (frequently referred to in these 
pages) of the migration of birds at Fair Isle, he put up out of 
a patch of potatoes a dark-coloured Willow-Warbler, which 
he at once suspected belonged to a species he had never seen 
before. He was fortunate enough to secure the bird, which 
proved to be an undoubted example of Eversmann’s Warbler 
(Phylloscopus borealis), a species which has not previously 
been detected as occurring in the British Isles. This species 
has only once before occurred in Western Europe, viz., at 
Heligoland on October 6th, 1854. It summers in Finmark, 
Northern Russia and Siberia, and winters in Burma, Malaya, 
China, etc., and, as Mr. Clarke remarks, it would be interesting 
to know where the European contingent passes the winter, 
‘‘for it is difficult to believe that there are no winter retreats 
for this species nearer than the eastern sections of Southern 
Asia ”’ (ef. Ann..S.N.H., 1909, pp. 1 and 2). 


HAvING seen the article on the spreading of the Little Owl 
in British Birps, I thought it worth while to send you a 
record of one being shot near Petersfield, Hants, on December 
26th, 1908. While driving one of the hangers it dashed out 
from amongst some thick ivy bushes, and was shot by a friend 
who mistook it for a Woodcock or large Snipe. 



A Montacu’s HARRIER (Circus eruginosus) in immature plumage 
was shot about September 10th, 1901, at Castle Flemyng, 
Queen's co. My informant is the owner of the specimen, on 
whose estate it was shot. It has not hitherto been specially 
recorded in print, but it makes the eleventh occurrence of 
this bird in Ireland, to which I allude in my “ List of Irish 
Birds” (p. 27). All the other examples have been taken in 
or near the co. Wicklow (cf. antea, Vol. I., p. 318). 

R. J. UssHER. 


A FEMALE (? adult) Iceland Falcon (Falco islandicus) was 
received by me in the flesh on December 19th, 1908. It was 

NOTES. 311 

killed some ten days earlier on or near Callanish Light, 
Flannan Isles, by Stornoway, Lewis, N.B. 


On November 27th, 1908, on dissecting a Red-breasted 
Merganser drake (Mergus serrator) I found in the crop a small 
round crab a little larger than a shilling, and in the gizzard 
two more crabs of the same size, one whole and the other 
slightly digested. Besides these there were two or three claws, 
one being that of a much larger crab, and the ground-up 
remains of a number of crab-shells. There was also some 
flesh in all stages of digestion, most of which was that of crab, 
but the more digested pieces were difficult to determine, 
although I think they were crab, as there was no trace of 
fish-bones whatever. The absence of fish remains was all 
the more interesting as the bird was shot off a shore swarming 
with coal-fish fry. 

H. W. Rosrnson. 


On January Ist I received for identification from Churchstoke 
a young male Smew, which had been shot there the previous 
day. It is the first ever recorded in the county of Montgomery. 
A similar bird was shot near Shrewsbury just a week earlier. 
As the Smew has occurred over a dozen times in Shropshire, 
it must almost certainly have visited the neighbouring county 
of Montgomery, but has hitherto apparently escaped notice. 

HH. . ForRREst. 


WiruH reference to Mr. W. P. Pycraft’s description of the 
remarkable variety of Red-legged Partridge (Caccabis rufa) 
killed this season in Essex (cf. antea, p. 240), it is perhaps in- 
teresting to record the two somewhat similarly marked 
varieties of the Common Partridge (Perdix cinerea) in the 
possession of Lord Forester. These birds were killed a 
number of years ago on the Willey Park Estate, near Broseley, 
Salop, and it is believed that they were both shot from the 
same covey. The two birds are very much alike, and a des- 
eription of one will perhaps suffice. The lower neck, breast 
and flanks—indeed all the underparts save the centre of the 
belly—are of a uniform chestnut-brown; the back and wing- 
coverts are also abnormal, these parts being profusely, and 


more or less evenly, blotched with dark brown. The rest of 

the plumage is of normal coloration, but, owing to long ex- 

posure to the light, both specimens are sadly faded. 

[Mr. Ingram kindly forwarded us an accurately coloured 
sketch of the bird in question, and this we have submitted to 
Mr. J. H. Gurney, who has for some years taken a great 
interest in this variety of the Partridge, which persistently 
recurs in Norfolk. Mr. Gurney writes as follows :— 

‘* On comparing Mr. Ingram’s coloured sketch with a good 
example of the Perdix montana of Brisson (Orn., I., p. 224), 
killed a few years ago in Norfolk, it appears certainly to re- 
present an immature but faded example of that variety. This 
singular race or breed seems to be best described as an 
erythrism, or abnormal replacement of the natural colours by 

THE average weight of ninety Snipe shot in Shetland, as 
given on p. 267, Vol. II., seems to suggest that they must 
have been specially selected specimens, or at least secured 
during a specially favourable season. It would have been 
interesting had you given the date and time of year when the 
ninety 5°78 oz. Snipe were secured in Shetland. Most careful 
and accurate statistics, taken by a friend of mine in Orkney 
during September, October, and November, 1908, work out at 
4:15 oz. for 1679 Common, and 2°24 oz. for 328 Jack Snipe. 
Maurice C. H. Brrp. 

[The weights given by Mr. Haldane were quoted because 
they were above the usually accepted average. Saunders 
(Manual, p. 574) gives the average weight of the Common 
Snipe as 4 ozs.: Mr. Harting (Handbook, p. 200) 4 to 43 ozs. 
In the note quoted Mr. Haldane suggests that the heavy 
weight of the Shetland Snipe and Woodcock might be due 
to the fact that food is always plentiful, and that the weather 
is usually open. In reply to the Rev. Bird’s questions, Mr. 
Haldane kindly writes that he has re-read his note in the 
‘‘ Annals,” and agrees with all he there stated. As corrobora- 
tion he gives the following weights, taken at random from his 
diary :—‘‘ Dec. 22, 1904, 4 Snipe, 63, 63, 6, 7 ozs. One day 
in December three Snipe, 6, 7, 70zs. Dec. 27, 1901, eleven 
Woodcock weighed an average of 13°6 ozs., the lightest being 
12 and the heaviest 163 ozs.” Mr. Haldane adds :—‘‘ About 
the end of November and December they seem to attain their . 
greatest weight. I never pick birds, but have them weighed 
as they come in. I know nothing about Orkney. The two 
groups of islands are quite unlike.”—EDs. | 

NOTES. 51 

AN adult female Pomatorhine Skua (Stercorarius pomatorhinus) 
was killed with a stone near Cockersand Light, Lancashire, on 
November 28th, 1908. 

I may also mention that an adult male was shot near 
Graemsay Lighthouse, Orkney, on November 4th, and an 
immature male at Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, on November 

Mr. H. N. Pasuuey, of Cley, Norfolk, has kindly sent me 
word of two Levantine Shearwaters which were shot by 
George Long (a local wildfowler) on September 22nd, 1891, 
on the bar at Blakeney. One of these birds is in the collection 
of Mr. E. M. Connop, of Wroxham, who permits me to record 
it, and the other is in the collection of Mr. Percy Evershed, 
of Norwich, and both have been examined by Mr. T. 
Southwell. Mr. Pashley states that both birds were seen by 
Howard Saunders and Lt.-Col. H. W. Feilden, and were 
pronounced by the former to be true Levantines. It may 
have been due to a slip that they were not referred to in the 
second edition of the ‘‘ Manual,” but in any case their history 
and identification seem perfectly satisfactory. 

H. F. WrrHersy. 

On November 6th, 1908, the Duchess of Bedford saw a speci- 
men of Ruticilla titys, a scarce visitor to Scotland, on South 
Uist (Ann. S.N.H., 1909, p. 4). On October 22nd, 1908, a 
fine male was seen at Balcomie, Fife, by the Misses Rintoul 
and Baxter (t.c., p. 49). 

On September 22nd, 1908, a specimen of Sylvia hortensis was 
taken at the Sule-Skerry Lighthouse (W. Eagle Clarke, Ann. 
S.N.H., 1909, p. 48). 

oF Lrewis.—On November 3rd, 1908, while at Barra, the 
Duchess of Bedford saw a small brown bird which, coming 
well into view, was seen to have the basal half of the tail 
white with the exception of the centre feathers, which were 
dark. It thus became clear that the bird was either a 
female or young male Muscicapa parva (Ann. S.N.H., 
1909, p. 3). Although of late years Mr. Eagle Clarke 
has recorded several of these birds from Fair Isle, only 
two other instances (one at the Monarch Lighthouse 
in 1893, and the other at the Bell Rock on October 25th, 
1907) of its occurrence in Scotland were known. Mr. Robert 
Clyne, who obtained the bird at the Bell Rock, now writes 



that he is certain he saw a bird of the same species on 
November Ist, 1908, on the cliff edge at the Butt of Lewis, 
where he is now stationed (t.c., p. 48). 

HawFINCH IN SUMMER IN East Lorutan.—The Rev. 
H. N. Bonar records that an immature male Coccothraustes 
vulgaris was found dead at Tyneholm, Pencaitland, on July 3rd, 
1908 (Ann. S.N.H., 1909, p. 48). For Scottish breeding 
records, see antea, Vol. I., p. 151. 

LittLe Buntine at SuLe-SkerRy (N.W. of Orkney).— 
On September 22nd, 1908, a specimen of Emberiza pusilla was 
taken at the Sule-Skerry Lighthouse (W. Eagle Clarke, Ann. 
SNH. 1909: p. 48). 

writes that a male ‘‘ four-year-old White-tailed Eagle was shot 
near Hereford on December 31st, 1908, and is being preserved 
for the Hereford Museum.” 

Honey-Buzzarps In Eneuanp.—Mr. F. Smalley kindly 
informs us that the specimen of Pernis apivorus mentioned 
in our last number (p. 283) as having been shot near Beccles, 
Norfolk, was obtained on September 23rd, and was in dark 
chocolate-coloured plumage. Mr. H. E. Forrest writes that 
specimens were shot at Ashbourne (Derbyshire) on 
September 10th, near Cardigan on September 24th, and 
near Tamworth on September 30th. One was shot near 
Carlisle on October 23rd, 1908 (L. E. Hope, Nat., 1909, p. 30). 

article (Nat., 1909, pp. 11-16) Mr. E. W. Wade deplores the 
fact that the Stone-Curlew, once so plentiful in Yorkshire, 
now barely exists in two districts only—one in the North 
Riding and the other on the wolds. Cultivation of what was 
once “‘ waste’ land or warren, is responsible for the banish- 
ment of the bird, and although there is great danger of their 
extinction in the county owing to their present very small 
numbers, there should be good hope for them on account 
of their well-known persistence in returning to ancient 
breeding haunts, however changed. Moreover, the culti- 
vation of the wolds “appears to have reached its highest 
point.”” Mr. Wade confirms Mr. Meade-Waldo’s observation 
of the incubation period, viz., 26-27 days (cf. antea, Vol. L., 
ps 92): 

BLACK-NECKED GREBE ON THE SoLway.—A female speci- 
men of Podicipes nigricollis in winter dress, but showing traces 
of nuptial dress on the neck and cheeks, was shot at Bowness 
on the Solway on December 3rd, 1908. The species rarely 
occurs on the Solway (L. E. Hope, Nat., 1909, p. 30). 


mins Sm 

ERE My i iy 
as ae 4 eiziale 

The Food of Some British Birds. By Robert Newstead, M.Sc., 
A.L.S., &c. Supplement to the Journal of the Board of 
Agriculture. December, 1908. Price 4d. 

WE are glad to find that the Board of Agriculture is at last 
beginning to realize the importance of the study of Economic 
Ornithology, for the Report they have just issued does credit 
alike to the author and the authorities under whose auspices 
it is published. 

Before proceeding to indicate the scope of Mr. Newstead’s 
careful and valuable work, we may say that if there is one 
thing more than another which it serves to demonstrate, it is 
this—that his conclusions are of local value only; and Mr. 
Newstead, probably more than anyone else, would be the first 
to insist on this. But his work, we trust, will be taken as a 
model to be followed in every county throughout these 
islands ; then, and not till then, shall we be in a position to 
draw reliable data from the facts collected, whereon to base 
legislation, or to adopt measures for the control of any given 
Species in any particular area. The conclusions which Mr. 
Newstead has drawn from his study of the food of birds in 
the county of Chester, for example, will not apply with equal 
truth in, say, a fruit-growing county. 

Mr. Newstead’s paper contains the results only of some 
871 post-mortem examinations of birds representing 128 species, 
some of which are but rare visitants, such as the Hoopoe, 
Waxwing, Bittern, and Crane; while in the case of many 
common species he has examined but a single stomach. 

In the first eighteen pages of this Report he gives a general 
summary of his work, which has extended over the last twenty 
years, concluding this section with a few brief generalizations 
as to the relative value of our commoner British birds, in 
relation to the farmer and gardener, and though we agree in 
the main with his summary, we feel that in some cases his 
condemnation of certain species is premature and based on 
insufficient evidence. 

The Blackbird, Bullfinch, Sparrow-Hawk, and Raven he 
brands as ‘“‘ doubtfully of any utility,’ while the Carrion Crow, 
House-Sparrow, and Wood-Pigeon are ‘‘ species which are 
wholly destructive and useless.”” At any rate, of the last- 
named it may be said that it is good to eat, and, therefore, 
not useless. 


Of many fish-eating birds, such as the Kingfisher, Auks, 
and so on, he gives no particulars as to the kind of fish eaten, 
apparently because their remains were too fragmentary to 
make identification possible. But this is not necessarily so, 
for most, if not all, of these fish could have been identified by 
means of the ‘‘ otoliths,”’ or ear-bones. 

Of some other birds his findings are curiously interesting. 
Thus an analysis of the stomachs of four Common Snipe 
yielded seeds, grass, fragments of beetles, and small land 
shells! while five Jack Snipe gave similar results. The only 
Woodcock examined contained an earwig, a beetle, and a 
little sand ! 

Of the Black-headed Gull we are glad to note he remarks :— 
‘‘ Fortunately the birds were, and are still, strictly protected 
in this area (Chester).”’ And this because, among other 
things, it devours enormous numbers of crane-flies, and their 
larvee—‘‘ leather jackets.”’ During the plague of these insects, 
which devastated the Dee Marshes in 1901, these Gulls 
gathered in hundreds to the feast, and gorged themselves so 
completely that the pellets, or castings, thrown up were left, 
scattered over the land, ‘“‘ looking like little bundles of dead 

Mr. Newstead is to be congratulated on his work, which, so 
far as it goes, is excellent ; but what is wanted is an exhaustive 
analysis of a larger number of the commoner species of our 
native birds continued through every month of the year, 
including the nesting season, for our knowledge of the food 
of nesting birds is peculiarly meagre. And this work, to be 
convincing, must be carried on by experts, and with scrupulous 
accuracy and attention to details. Results obtained at hap- 
hazard, and from a single example of any given species, are 
practically useless.—W.P.P. 






bE B 3809 
As eee 

| Naturalists’ Camera, 
1907, MODEL, 
; For Telephoto or Ordinary LENSES. 
Lenses are used 
by the most 
skilled Bird 

The following are 
specially vecomniended : 

THE STIGMATIC SERIES IL. F/6  (Convertible.) 

(A Rapid Lone Focus Lens at a Moderate Price.) 

High or Moderate Power Telephoto Lenses (Original Make). 
We are Specialists in Cameras and A pparatus us for er eter tees 

J. H. DALLMEYER, Limitep, benziL ro., 

Showrooms: 25, NEWMAN ah Ww. NEASDEN, LONDON, NW. 

A collection of Birds from Mount Ruwenzori, East Africa, 
including Cryptolopha alpina, Néctarinia dartmouthi, Cinnyris stuhimanni, 

Anthus leggei, and other rarities, many of which have not appeared in any “A 

previous lists. 
For Particulars apply to— 


Naturalist. and Importer of Zoological Collections, 

Price Lists of Birdskins and Eggs post free on Application. 



And Manufacturers of CABINETS and APPARATUS for Entomology, Birds’ Eas iy 

and Skins, and all Branches of Natural History. 

Speciality :—Objects for Nature Study, Drawing Classes, &c. 


All Books and Publications on’ Natural History supplied. 

86, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. (Five Doors from Charing sia 

~ Catalogue (102, PP.) post free. 


io. - 


ay ds 
iv ; 

oe Cp 

os ei yi 
7 rf a M OT ¥ 
Rael wai, 
ua Cc a 

7 A ee 

_@ureygqesy KajxQ Aq paydesgojoyd) 


(LZ Id “Il ‘1°A ‘SAYId HSILIAd) 



ContTENTS OF NumBER 10, Vou. II. Marcu 1, 1909. 

The Colony of Little Terns at Spurn Point, Yorkshire, 

by Oxley Grabham, M.A., M.B.o.u. (Plate VII.) .. Page 317 
On a Plan of Mapping Migratory Birds in their Nesting 
Areas, by C. J. and H. G. Alexander .. : 322 

On the More Important Additions to our ineticde he 
British Birds since 1899, by H. F. Witherby and N. F. 

Ticehurst. Part XVIII.—(continued from page 308) .. 327 
On the Eggs of the Tree- ra ba Se i. Seo E.Z.S.; 
M.B.O.U. i 335 

Notes :—The iblse raphe ot British Birds. (Ghonbaies 
Legislation for the Protection of Birds. The British 
Song-Thrush and Dartford Warbler (Eds.). Northern 
Willow-Wren in Norfolk (Clifford Borrer and H. F. 
Witherby). Lesser Spotted Woodpecker Breeding in 
Merioneth (H. E. Forrest). _Hoopoe in Merioneth (H. E. 
Forrest). Little Owlin Warwickshire and Worcestershire 
(F. Coburn) The Food of the Common Hider. (H. W. 
Robinson). Velvet-Scoter in Shropshire (H. E. Forrest). 
Increase of Wood-Pigeons in Orkney (Rev. James R. 
Hale). Red Variety (P. montana) of the Common 
Partridge (H. E. Forrest). Short Notes ne os 340 

OXLEY GRABHAM, m.a., m.z.o.v. 
(Pearse VIT.) 

I po not propose to enter here into the peculiarities of 
the Little Tern (Sterna minuta) in general, but merely to 
give a few facts relative to the last Yorkshire breeding 
colony, which at present is, | am glad to say, in a 
flourishing condition. Spurn Point, at the mouth of the 


Humber, is an isolated spit of land, bordered on one side 
by the North Sea and on the other by the vast mud- 
flats of the Humber. It has been a happy hunting 
ground of mine for many years, in autumn and winter, 
wild-fowling along the river and coast and in the 
marshes, and spending nights in the lighthouse to view 
the enormous flocks of birds that pass on migration, and 
in the summer watching and photographing the Little 
Terns and other birds that breed there. 

The Little Terns have bred there as long as living 

Fic. 1.—The Eggs in a Slight Scoop on Fine Sand. 
(Photographed by Oxley Grabham.) 

memory goes back, and doubtless for a great many years 
before ; but a decade or so ago the birds were in danger 
of extinction owing to the raids made upon them by 
collectors, and also owing to the thoughtlessness of 
excursionists who used to pick up the eggs and throw 
them at one another for fun!! We did not mind anyone 
taking a clutch of eggs for scientific purposes, but this 
sort of thing was too much, and so a few of us, with Mr. W. 
H. St. Quintin, of Scampston, at our head (than whom no 
one living has done more to preserve the birds of our 


county that needed protection), subscribed together 
and put on a watcher. We also received great assistance 
from Mr. Consett Hopper, Mr. J. W. Webster, the light- 
house keepers, and others who live at the Point. Things 
had got so bad that the colony had dwindled to about a 
dozen pairs, and these few were so harried and disturbed 
_that they hardly ever came near their eggs during the 
daytime, and had to trust to the heat of the sun and the 
sand, only settling down when night fell. 

The birds arrive at their breeding grounds almost 

Fic. 2.—Newly-Hatched Young. 
(Photographed by Oxley Grabham.) 

to a day at the end of April. In the cold spring of 1907 
they did not appear till May Ist, the latest date that 
Robinson, our watcher, has ever known, and most of them 
leave at the end of August. They sit on their eggs for 
about seventeen days, and the young can toddle away 
as soon as they are out of the shell, which the old birds 
remove at once. I have noticed two types of chicks: 
one much yellower than the other. High tides often do 
much damage to the eggs, which are placed too near the 


ordinary high-water mark. But Robinson, if he scents 
danger, moves the eggs a considerable distance inshore, 
and the birds easily find them. If the first clutch be 
destroyed the Little Terns always lay again, and occasion- 
ally even when they have hatched off one clutch they 
will lay again. Sometimes just at hatching time we 
have had two or three days of very cold rough weather, 
and then I have seen the poor little chicks, just out of 
the shell, huddling together under the lee of a big stone, 
an old boot, piece of wood, or any flotsam and jetsam 

Fic. 3.—Little Tern calling to her Mate. 
(Photographed by Oxley Grabham.) 

washed ashore by the sea that will afford them protection 
and at such times a few always succumb to exposure. 
But, as a rule, there is very little mortality amongst 
either the old or young birds, if the weather is propitious. 
They have few natural enemies here, and their eggs are 
very fertile—one seldom comes across a bad one. The 
young are fed largely on very small plaice about the size 
of a penny, sand-eels, sprats, etc. During 1908 between 
fifty and sixty pairs of birds bred here, and in spite of 
some very cold weather, just at hatching time, a good 


percentage of young arrived at maturity. There is 
nothing peculiar to this particular colony in the nests of 
eggs. The usual clutch is two, occasionally three, and 
rarely I have found four. Owing to the drifting sand- 
storms to which this coast is exposed, the eggs frequently 
get covered up to the depth of several inches, but the old 
birds almost invariably scratch them out again, and 
make all right. 

In connection with our Spurn colony one further item 
of interest may be mentioned. The late John Cordeaux, 

Fic. 4.—Little Tern on the Nest. 
(Photographed by Oxley Grabham.) 

who took a very great interest in the birds of the Humber, 
told me that a good many years ago he sent some eggs 
of the Little Tern—as this species is wanting in those 
otherwise Tern-favoured islets—to the Farne Islands. 
They were put in the nests of the Common and Arctic 
Terns, but although they hatched out all right, and 
eventually went away with their foster-parents, they 
never returned to the scenes of their youth; and so the 
attempts to introduce this pretty little species into the 
Farnes resulted in failure. 

( 322) 


C. J. anp H. G. ALEXANDER. 

AFTER some years’ observation of the birds in the 
neighbourhood of Tunbridge Wells, we came to the 
conclusion that in many species each pair inhabits a 
definite area, into which other pairs do not intrude. In 
the spring of 1907, therefore, we decided to mark in the 
positions of these pairs on 6 in. Ordnance Survey Maps. 
In that summer we mapped a considerable area round 
Tunbridge Wells, while in the summer of 1908 we 
increased this area, and also began mapping at Wye 
(near Ashford). 

In placing a pair of birds on the map we generally relied 
on the singing of the male, though in many cases we saw 
the female as well, and occasionally found the nest. In 
the migratory species of the J’urdide most individuals 
sing persistently from their arrival (provided the weather 
is suitable) to the time of pairing, less during the time 
of nest-building, again more while the females are 
sitting, and less after the young are hatched. A Chiff- 
chaff at Wye apparently did not sing at all after it 
began to build, and from this extreme all gradations 
occur up to individuals which sing nearly as much all 
through the rest of the song-period as just after their 
arrival. | 

When a bird of any migratory species appears at a 
place on one day and is gone again on the next, it is 
safe to assume that it is only on its way to its own 
breeding-ground. Of such individuals we only see a 
very few, both of species which breed in our districts, 
and of species such as the Ring-Ouzel, Greenland Wheat- 
ear, Redstart, and Common Sandpiper, which do not; 
the only occasion on which we have seen any number 


was at Wye on April 23rd, 1908 (the day before the 
snow), when seven passing Willow-Wrens were observed 
where only eighteen local ones had arrived. 

The method of arrival which we have observed in these 
two districts agrees with what has been made clear in 
the “B.O.C. Migration Reports,” namely, that each 
migratory “wave” drops a few individuals of a species 
in a district. Thus the filling of these two districts 
with any one species takes several weeks. In 1908, 
for instance, the first male Chiffchaff belonging to the 
Tunbridge Wells district was seen on March 30th, while 
another of the Chiffchaffs of the district did not arrive 
until about April 30th; some Willow-Wrens at Wye 
did not arrive until after May 4th; two Tree-Pipits 
arrived near Tunbridge Wells on April 11th, while some 
did not come until early May ; and one Blackcap reached 
the same district on April 10th, others not until the 
beginning of May. 

So far as we have been able to judge, certain males 
are habitually among the earliest, others among the 
later, arrivals. | 

The males inhabiting one small district (such as a wood, 
or stream valley) often appear to arrive together. In the 
case of such a district which contained several pairs of a 
particular species in 1907, but none in 1908, we conclude 
that the males were travelling together and were overtaken 
by some calamity. At Tunbridge Wells, the only five 
Willow-Wrens of a district known as Bishopsdown, and 
three Chiffchaffs close together near Langton, were 
absent in 1908, and at Wye three Sedge-Warblers, which 
had inhabited a part of the river for at least three seasons, 
likewise did not appear in 1908. 

The females seem to be always a few days behind the 
males, and we have observed the curious fact that those 
males which arrive first are first joined by the females, 
so that an early pair may be building before the male of 
a late pair has arrived. This suggests to us that the same 
female returns to the haunt of its mate year after year. 


The young seem to disappear earlier than their parents 
in most species, the Red-backed Shrike being an ex- 
ception. In those species in which the sexes are alike, 
and in which the males do not sing in the autumn, we 
cannot tell which sex leaves first. Im the case of the 
Chiffchaff the males are the last to leave; a pair of 
Whinchats left together in 1908 between September 
30th and October Ist; the last two Blackcaps seen in 
1908 were females, but there is a possibility that these 
were merely passing. 

It seems that certain individuals habitually stay 
latest, just as certain ones habitually come earliest. We 
have not been able to detect any correlation between 
early arrival and late departure. 

Our mapping also provides a census of certain species 
in the two districts, and shows the variation in numbers 
from year to year. It will be seen in the subjoined table 
that the numbers in 1908 were practically the same as 
those in 1907, except in the Chiffchaff and Red-backed 
Shrike, which show considerable losses. In almost all 
cases the losses appear slightly greater than the gains, 
but this is probably due to the fact, that it is easier to be 
sure that a bird which certainly was here last year, is 
not here this year, than to be sure that one which is here | 
this year was not overlooked last year. The minus 
number in 1908 compared with the 1907 number gives 
the proportional loss on migration of the adult males, 
and hence their length of life; but it would not be safe 
to work this out on one season’s difference. 

What becomes of young birds we cannot pretend to 
say ; the individuals shown in the plus number in 1908 
are presumably young of the previous year. We have 
occasionally found two males of a species arrived at the 
same place and singing at one another. Eventually, as 
with Robins in the autumn, one has disappeared, or else 
has settled in an unoccupied place near by. 

The observations of only two years are insufficient to 
form a basis for definite conclusions in all cases, but in 


N. Nightingale. 
Wh. Whitethroat. 
Lesser White- 


. Blackcap. 
Garden- Warbler 


Spotted Fly- 



Each square represents 

a pair of Birds. 


hte, Mo} o> 

My, Se 
Me a 
“ a 
‘ wh, 7% -a 



B PZ Wasi 
Z| “4a A Se 
ba 2 \ 
—— \ 


(Six inches equals one mile). 



this article we have given some of the results, as well as 
an idea of what may be the outcome of more complete 
observations on these lines. 

TABLE showing the difference in number of pairs of certain 

migrants at Tunbridge Wells between 1907 and 1908, and the 

total number of pairs of migrants mapped in a larger district 
at Tunbridge Wells and in a district at Wye in 1908. 

Number of 
| pairs in 
Wheatear Q-; 
Whinchat 0 
Stonechat 3 
Nightingale + 
Whitethroat ells 2 
Lesser Whitethroat) 15 
Blackeap .. Par Ve 
Garden-Warbler..| 13 
Chiffchaff . . ; 42 
Willow-Wren |. 123 
Wood-Wren | 
Grey Wagtail 0 
Tree- Pipit 38 
Red-backed Shrike. 7 
Spotted Balad 18 
Wryneck . be 9 BO 
Corncrake | 0 

in 1908. 
om ees 
ee iy | 
0) | 
a ee 
me pee: 
Be | 

Number of 

pairs in 8 
sq. miles at 



Number of 
pairs in 
4 sq. miles 
at Wye 

* Not present in 1907. 


Part XVIII. 

(Continued from page 308.) 

SABINE’S GULL Xema sabinii (Sab.). 8S. page 657. 

Immature birds appear to occur almost regularly in autumn 
on the Norfolk coast, while occurrences have been recorded 
of recent years from Cornwall, Somerset, Yorkshire, Derby, 
and Hants. An adult bird was shot near Rye, Sussex, on 
October 20th, 1891. (N. F. T.) 

ScoTLanp.—Skerryvore.—One immature bird on February 
10th, 1905, and one on November 30th, 1907 (Ann. S.N.H., 
1906, p. 202, and 1908, p. 205). Argyllshire —An immature 
bird received for preservation on October 30th, 1903, from 
Easdale (C. H. Bisshop, t.c., 1904, p. 57). 

The breeding of this species on Spitzbergen has now been 
proved beyond doubt by the discovery in 1907 by Professor 
Konig’s expedition of a nest with two eggs, from which the 
parent birds were shot (F. C. R. Jourdain in litt.). 

WEDGE-TAILED GULL Shodostethia rosea Macgill. 
S. page 659. 

Nesting Habits—In the delta of the Kolyma River, N.E. 
Siberia, it was found breeding numerously by Mr. 8. A. 
Buturlin in 1905. Though snow was still deep, and the ice 
had only just broken up on the river, incubated eggs were 
found on June 13th. The birds nest in small colonies of ten 
to fifteen pairs. Early in July young in down were found. 
The eggs, young in down, and young in first plumage, are fully 
described (Ibis, 1906, pp. 131-139, 333-337, 610, and Pl. XX. 
(egos), 661-666, 1907, Pl. XII. (young in down)). 

LITTLE GULL Larus minutus Pall. 8S. page 663. 

This species being of fairly regular occurrence on the east. 
and south-east coasts of England, and especially so on the 
Norfolk coast and the east coast of Scotland in autumn and 
winter, we have not quoted the records. 


Scitty IsLEs.—One was shot on St. Mary’s in December, 
1905 (J. Clark, Zool., 1906, p. 343). 

CoRNWALL.—One was obtained at Swan Cove in November, 
1904 (J. Clark, ¢.c., 1907, p. 287). 

CHESHIRE. — One (apparently adult) seen on December 
26th, 1902, on the Manchester Ship Canal (T. A. Coward, 
t.c., 1903, p. 172). One seen flying round the ‘“ Conway,” 
on December 16th, 1903 (F. C. R. Jourdain, t.c., 1904, p. 193). 

NortH WaeEs.—One in 1898 and two in 1901 are 
mentioned (H. EK. Forrest, Vert. F. N. Wales, p. 379). 

SHETLAND.—One at Nyra Sound, May 3rd, 1904 (T. E. 
Saxby, é.c., 1904, p. 230). 

[IRELAND.—One was seen by “G. W.” on the coast of 
Connaught on several days between July 13th and August 
25th, 1906, in company with a number of Black-headed Gulls 
(Field, 13, x., 06, p. 650).] 

Has recently been found breeding in the Ringkjébing Fjord, 
Denmark (vide Field, 17, x11., 04, and 23, xmz., 05; and Vid. 
Med. nat. For. Kbhvn., 1905, p. 245), and also at Rossitten in 
Kast Prussia (J.f.0., 1903, p. 186), thus it seems to be extending 
its range westw ard. 

melanocephalus Natt. 8S. page 667. 

YORKSHIRE.—An adult in winter plumage was obtained 
on the Yorkshire coast in November, 1895. No further 
details are permitted by the owner (T. H. Nelson, birds of 
Yorks., p. 675). 

[CoRNWALL.—Iwo examples, stated in a manuscript cata- 
logue by Harry Shaw to have been killed near Falmouth in 
March, 1851, are now in the possession of Mr. Beville Stanier, 
of Peplow Hall, Salop (H. E. Forrest, Zool., 1907, p. 33).] 

Pall. S. page 674. 

[One was seen in Dover Harbour on April 18th, 1904, amongst 
some other Herring-Gulls, and came close enough for its 
orange-coloured legs to be noticed (N. C. Rothschild, Bull. 
BOG, DAV. pas 

GLAUCOUS GULL Larus glaucus O. Fab. S. page 679. 

This species occurs so frequently in Scotland and on the 
coasts of England as not to require special mention. 

IRELAND.—One seen on January Ist, 1901, and an immature 
bird obtained on February 14th, 1905, at Moyview, co. Sligo 


(R. Warren, Irish Nat., 1905, p. 71), and an immature bird 
was shot on Rathlin Island on February 19th, 1907 (W. C. 
Wright, t.c., 1907, p. 224). One was found dead at Bartragh 
Island on December 8th, 1906 (R. Warren, Zool., 1907, p. 73). 

OrKNEY.—December 25th—26th, 1901, “ over fifty, mostly 
adult birds; never saw more than four at a time before ”’ 
(AnnoOs.N ., 1902, p: 197). 

ICELAND GULL Larus leucopterus Faber. S. page 681. 

Winter occurrences of this species are too frequent to require 
special notice. 

Late Dates——One was seen from April 30th to May 2nd, 
1903, and another on May 17th, 1904, in Mull (D. Macdonald, 
Ann. S.N.H., 1904, p. 247). One was seen on April 7th, 
1902, at Londonderry (D. C. Campbell, Irish Nat., 1902, p. 
151). One was shot on April 26th, 1905, in the Moy Estuary 
(R. Warren, t.c., 1905, p. 135). 

IVORY GULL Pagophila eburnea (Phipps). S. page 685 

YORKSHIRE.—One was seen at Flamborough on April 5th, 
1904, and was ultimately obtained (T. H. Nelson, Birds of 
Yorks., p. 694). 

NoRTHAMPTONSHIRE.—A bird in immature plumage was 
shot at Weston-by-Weedon on or about February 7th, 1901 
(O. V. Aplin, /bzs, 1901, p. 517). 

CoRNWALL.—I'wo were seen, and one (adult male) was shot 
in the Hayle Estuary on January 24th, 1907 (J. Clark, Zool., 
1907; p. 287): 

ScortanpD.—In January, 1890, the first from the Outer 
Hebrides was obtained at Stornoway (J. A. Harvie-Brown, 
Ann. S.N.H., 1903, p. 16). Early in February, 1901, one 
was obtained at Broadford, Skye (T. E. Buckley, ¢.c., 1901, 
p- 116). One was identified on a close view at Largo Bay, 
Fifeshire, on September 14th, 1904 (L. J. Rintoul and E. V. 
Baxter, t.c., 1905, p. 53). One was seen “lately” (spring, 
1906) in North Uist (N. B. Kinnear, t.c., 1907, p. 85). 

IRELAND.—The third specimen for Ireland was shot at 
Belmullet on March 27th, 1905 (R. J. Ussher, List of Irish 
Birds, p. 50). 

GREAT SKUA WMegalestris catarrhactes (L.). S. page 687. 
Hants.—One was picked up dead at Lainston, in March, 
1904 (Birds of Hants, p. 339). 

Kent.—A female was shot on Dungeness on October 4th, 
1900 (W. R. Butterfield, Zool., 1900, p. 521). 


NorFoLtk.—Five were seen on the coast by Mr. Long on 
August 31st, 1899. Only once before been seen so early, 
October being the usual time (J. H. Gurney, t.c., 1900, 
o. 109). 

LINCOLNSHIRE.—A bird, probably of this species, was seen 
off Donna Nook, on September 21st, 1901 (G. H. Caton Haigh, 
bc., VOOZ, qo. daz): 

Yorxks.—One was shot near Robin Hood’s Bay on June 
29th, 1904 (W. J. Clarke, t.c., 1905, p. 74). One was obtained 
at Bridlington in the autumn of 1904 (Birds of Yorks., p. 

ScotLanp.—Fair Isle-—The natives assured Mr. W. Eagle 
Clarke that they had it from their fathers that the “ Bonxie”’ 
long ago bred on the island (Ann. S.N.H., 1906, p. 78). 
Shetland.—* Has increased in numbers... . there being 
at least eighty-four birds on this island ”’ [Unst] (T. E. Saxby, 
Zool., 1901, p. 391). Twenty-one nests at Hermaness in 1901 
(Ann. S.N.H., 1902, p. 197). At least thirty-four nests with 
egos in June, 1905, one new colony started (f.c., 1905, p. 182). 
Forty-two nests in 1907 (Duchess of Bedford, t#.c., 1908, p. 4). 
A pair breeding on Burrafirth Voe had their eggs taken by the 
Rev. Sorby in 1904, and another pair breeding on Hascasay 
were robbed by Major Stirling in 1907. These records seem 
to show that the bird has now a tendency to form new colonies, 
as is the case with the Fulmar. Owter Hebrides.—One was shot 
in North Harris on January 8th, 1894, the first for the Outer 
Hebrides (J. A. Harvie-Brown, t.c., 1903, p. 17). Ayr.—One 
was seen on October 22nd, 1907, near Lendalfoot, the first 
for the Clyde area (t.c., 1908, p. 206). 

IsLE OF Man.—One was caught at Douglas in the late 
autumn of 1903 (P. Ralfe, Zool., 1904, p. 33). 

IRELAND.—One was seen in Holyhead Harbour on July 
20th, 1903 (C. J. Patten, ¢.c., 1904, p. 75). Mr. G. P. Farran 
has on six occasions at various seasons and at from 30-70 
miles off the isles of Kerry observed these Skuas (R. J. Ussher, 
Inst of Irish Birds, p. 50; Irish Nat., 1907, p. 184). 

POMATORHINE SKUA Stercorarius pomatorhinus (Temm.). 
S. page 689. 

This species has been recorded from all the east coast 
counties except Essex of recent years. 

IrELAND.—A bird in entirely brown plumage with twisted 
tail-feathers was shot on May 6th, 1902, on Inniskeal Island, 
co. Donegal (D. C. Campbell, Zrish Nat., 1902, p. 187). One 
was picked up dead at Lough Kiltooris, co. Donegal, on May 


29th, 1902 (J. Steele-Elliott, Zool., 1906, p. 154). One was 
shot on June 6th, 1906, at Loop Head, co. Clare (R. M. Bar- 
rington, Jrish Nat., 1906, p. 193). The followmg were seen in 
1906 by Mr. G. P. Farran, of the Fisheries Board, while 20-30 
miles off the south-west coast :—One on October 16th off 
Drogheda ; four on November 6th off Tearaght, co. Kerry ; 
also seen in May (R. J. Ussher, t.c., 1907, pp. 163 and 184). 

LONG-TAILED SKUA_ Stercorarius parasiticus (L.). 
S. page 693. 

SoMERSET.—One was shot on October 19th, 1903, at 
Axbridge (S. Lewis, Zool., 1904, p. 461) ; said to be the fourth 
for Somerset (F. L. Blathwayt, t.c., 1905, p. 36). 

TrELAND.—An adult was caught on Clare Island, co. Mayo, 
on June 14th, 1906 (R. M. Barrington, Irish Nat., 1906, p. 

GREAT AUK Alca impennis L. 8. page 697. 

The late Professor Newton in an interesting article on the 
‘“* Orcadian Home of the Garefowl ”’ (Jbis, 1898, pp. 587-592) 
explains that the breeding place of the Great Auk was on the 
Holm of Papa Westray, and not in Papa Westray itself. 
Professor Newton, in company with the late Henry Evans, 
Colonel Bolland, and Mr. Joseph Whitaker, landed on the Holm 
on June 27th, 1898, and visited the very spot which he thought 
must have been the “true home of the species whose 
extirpation, so far as Orkney is concerned, was compassed 
in 1813 by Bullock.” 

Bones of this species have been found in Antrim, Donegal, 
and Clare, in addition to Waterford (R. J. Ussher, List of 
Irish Birds, p..51, and Irish Nat., 1899, pp. 1-4, 1902, p. 188). 

BRUNNICH’S GUILLEMOT Uria bruennichi E. Sabine. 
S. page 701. 

YORKSHIRE.—One was procured near Flamborough Head 
in November, 1899, and one was shot about two miles off 
Castle Foot on October 28th, 1902 (T. H. Nelson, Birds of 
Yorks., p. 725). 

[On June 14th, 1908, when off the Pinnacle Rocks, Farne 
Islands, in a boat, Messrs. H. B. Booth and Riley Fortune 
saw a bird which they identified as an example of this species. 
‘* . .. it was not in full summer plumage, and it was the 
fact of having more white upon its neck and lower throat in 
contrast to its companions, the Common Guillemots, that 
first drew my attention to it, and it was rather darker on the 


upperparts... . . Its thicker, slightly shorter, and differently- 
shaped beak was quite distinct from that of the Common 
Guillemot." = 22.5 I could distinctly see (through my field- 

glasses} the white line along the edge of the basal half of 
the upper mandible” (H. B. Booth, Nat., 1908, p. 289).] 

BLACK GUILLEMOT Uma grylle (L.). 8S. page 703. 

CoRNWALL.—One was picked up dead near the St. Anthony 
Lighthouse, Falmouth, on March 12th, 1905, during’ very 
stormy weather. One of the rarest casuals in Cornwall 
(J. Clark, Zool., 1907, p. 287). 

Norrotk.—I'wo were seen near Wells by Mr. C. Hamond, 
on January 8th, 1898 (J. H. Gurney, ¢.c., 1899, p. 118). 

LITTLE AUK Mergulus alle (L.). 8. page 705. 

A great irruption of Little Auks occurred during February 
and March, 1900, when numbers were washed up chiefly on 
the Norfolk coast, and many in Suffolk. Compared to the 
‘‘ invasion ”’ in 1895 there were more if anything on this coast 
in 1900, but “‘the incursion expended itself in a space of 
about fifty miles extending from the Wash to Lowestoft, 
and reaching its maximum at Cley.” Not so many were found 
inland as in 1895, and although the numbers were large, 
there appeared to be fewer on the Yorkshire and Lincolnshire 
coasts. Norfolk appears to have recorded five great irruptions 
of this bird, viz., October, 1841 (probably the greatest) ; 
December, 1848; November, 1861; January, 1895; 
February, 1900 (J. H. Gurney, Zool., 1901, pp. 124-126; cf. also 
T..H. Nelson, Birds of Yorks., p. 731). One bird recorded 
‘‘ about mid-winter, 1900,” on St. Agnes, Scilly Isles (J. Clark 
and F. R. Rodd, t.c., 1906, p. 345), perhaps was a straggler 
from this horde. On January 4th, 1900, a great number 
were reported from North Uist, and in February many along 
the Aberdeen coast and several in the Forth area (Ann. 
S.N.H., 1901, p. 144). In the latter half of February, 1901, 
also over fifty were reported on the Norfolk coast (J. H. 
.Gurney, Zool., 1902, p. 87). 

G,. BR. Gray. 8. page 711. 

[On December 31st, 1901, a Diver with the whole of lower 
and about two-thirds of upper mandibles white, was picked 
up at Caister, Norfolk, but Mr. Gurney does not think the 
bill was sufficiently upturned for this species. Nor does he 


consider the specimen figured in Babington’s “ Birds of 
Suffolk ” a true C. adamsi (J. H. Gurney, Zool., 1902, p. 99; 
cf. also W. R. Ogilvie-Grant, antea, Vol. I., p. 295).] 

BLACK-THROATED DIVER Colymbus arcticus L. 
S. page 713. 
NortH WaALEs.—One seen by Mr. T. A. Coward in Aberffraw 

Bay, Anglesey, on April 21st, 1905, was in summer plumage 
(H. E. Forrest, Vert. F. N. Wales, p. 406). 

RED-THROATED DIVER Colymbus septentrionalis L. 
S. page 715. 

Moult.—At the end of September and beginning of October, 
1898, Mr. W. Farren had several examples of this species 
sent to him, and the majority of the adults were entirely 
devoid of flight feathers, both primaries and secondaries 
being shed en masse (Ann. S.N.H., 1899, p. 114). 

GREAT CRESTED GREBE Podicipes cristatus (L.). 

Oo pace arta. 

ScoTLAND.—T'iree.—Two pairs in breeding plumage on a 
loch on May 22nd, 1900, were reported (Ann. S.N.H., 1901, 
p. 145). ‘Is now (1904) a rapidly extending species in the 
nesting season, and nests freely in many parts both south and 
north of Forth and Clyde. One was seen on May 7th, 1903, 
in Assynt by Mr. F. L. Blathwayt, the first record for 
Sutherlandshire”’ (J. A. Harvie-Brown, A Fauna of N.W. 
Highlands and Skye, pp. 345-346). Three pairs nesting on 
Lake of Menteith (Perth), in 1905. Breeding range still 
slowly but surely extending (T. T. Mackeith, Zool., 1905, 
p. 314). 

From the published records there seems to be no doubt 
that in England the nesting birds are still increasing in 
numbers. This increase is very noticeable in the Midlands. 
Records of breeding from the northern counties (Cumberland, 
Durham, Northumberland, etc.) seem to be lacking, however. 

RED-NECKED GREBE Podicipes griseigena (Bodd.). 
S. page 719. 

This species is rare on the west side of Great Britain and 
on the south coast of England. 

JERSEY.—One is recorded without date (H. Mackay, Zool., 
1904, p. 382). 

Sark.—One was seen in March, 1902 (H. E. Howard, t.c., 
1902, p. 422). 


Surrey.—The adult male picked up on Farthing Down in 
1890 (Birds of Surrey, p. 346) was in full breeding plumage 
(J. A. Bucknill, Zool., 1901, p. 254). 

Kent.—A male in full summer plumage was shot at sea 
off Dungeness on April 14th, 1907. (N. F. T.) 

Mip-Wa.xEs.—A pair was seen on the Dovey in October 
and November, 1899 (J. H. Salter, t.c., 1902, p. 1). 

ScoTLanD.—One was shot at Portmary on February 20th, 
1900 (R. Service, Ann. S.N.H., 1900, p. 120). Another was 
shot at Glencaple on October 6th, 1903 (é.c., 1904, p. 217). 
One was shot on Spiggie on November 14th, 1901 (Ann. 
S.N.H., 1902, p. 198), and another on Baltasound (Shetlands) 
on December 30th, 1901 (T. E. Saxby, Zool., 1902, p. 113). 

IRELAND.—Eleven or twelve have been taken at long in- 
tervals on or near the coasts (R. J. Ussher, List of Irish Birds, 
p. 52). 

SLAVONIAN GREBE Podicipes auritus (L.). S. page 721. 

Saunders says “its occurrence on the southern and western 
shores of England seems to be irregular even in winter.” 

JERSEY.—Frequent (H. Mackay, t.c., 1904, p. 382). 

Scitty Isites.—An autumn and winter casual chiefly on 
Tresco, by no means rare. The last was recorded in November, 
1902 (J. Clark and F. R. Rodd, Zool., 1906, p. 345). 

Drvon.—“ I have noticed one or two on the river [? Taw] 
for the past two winters, and I am inclined to think that they 
are regular winter visitors”? (B. F. Cummings, é.c., 1905, 
p. 469). 

OxFORDSHIRE.—Mr. O. V. Aplin gives particulars of six 
winter occurrences previously unrecorded (t.c., 1899, p. 441), 
and of a seventh (é.c., 1907, p. 331). 

NortH Wa.LEs.—Occurs frequently in winter on the Meri- 
oneth coast (H. E. Forrest, Vert. F. N. Wales, p. 409). 

ScoTLaANnD.—There is considerable but not conclusive 
evidence of its having bred in Benbecula (Outer Hebrides) 
in 1893. Two were shot in full summer plumage in April, 
1898, in Barra (J. A. Harvie-Brown, Ann. S.N.H., 1903, 
pp. 21-22). One at Arisaig (Inverness) in full summer plumage 
on May 13th, 1907 (é.c., 1908, p. 207). 

Food.—In the stomach of one shot in the winter were 
besides feathers, elytra of water-beetles and numbers of larve 
of the Crane-fly (T7pula oleracea) (O. Grabham, Zool., 1899, 
p- 32).. One examin ed by G. Sim from Bruckley Castle, Dee 
area, contained flies, beetles, grubs, and stickle-backs (Vert. 
Fauna of Dee, p. 190). 

(To be continued.) 

( 835 ) 


PERCY F. BUNYARD, F.z.s., M.B.0.v. 

Ir is surely a little surprising that no one has yet seriously 
attempted to analyse and systematise the marvellous range 
of variation which the eggs of the Tree-Pipit (Anthus trivialis) 
present, in the matter of colour and arrangement of 
markings. How great is this range may be gathered from 
the extremely divergent descriptions which have from time 
to time been published by the various authors who have 
had occasion to refer to this subject. 

It has been contended indeed that it is impossible to 
define the limits of this variation. But with this view 
I cannot agree. On the contrary, as I propose to show, the 
apparent medley of colour and markings here presented can 
be reduced to an orderly system comprising no less than seven 
distinct types. This result, I need hardly say, could never 
have been arrived at if I had not, through the kindness of 
many friends, been enabled to examine a very large number 
of specimens. ‘These seven types (not varieties, be it noted) 
are, in my opinion, of sufficiently frequent occurrence, and so 
constant and well-defined as to justify this classification. 
They may be divided into two classes, namely, mottled, 
and spotted. I recognise three types of mottled eggs, 
two of which are very distinct; while in the spotted 
eggs I can distinguish four types, three of which have very 
strongly marked characteristics. It will be observed that I 
have endeavoured to describe the extreme, and less modified, 
forms of each of these; varieties I have not in this paper 
attempted to deal with; though they are of frequent 
occurrence they may, with a keen eye, and a little trouble, 
be traced to one or other of the types just referred to. 

A few words in regard to the system upon which I have 
worked to obtain these results may be of interest, though 
I do not pretend that this system would be applicable to the 
eggs of all species. The work of most importance is the 
separation of the clutches into their respective types (by no 
means a difficult operation), keeping them separate by placing 
each type in a separate tray upon which white cotton wool 
has been carefully and evenly spread ; if glass-lid boxes are 
used the lids should be removed before attempting to dis- 
tinguish the colours; always use a magnifying glass of low 
power, which assists very materially in obtaining accuracy 


in regard to oe shape, formation of the markings, texture 
of shell, etc. ; the stronger the light the better; I prefer sun- 
light, but of course not direct sun- light. As each point is 
determined, it should at once be carefully noted down, thus : 
ground colour, colour of markings, position and arrangement 
of markings, shape, and, finally, the texture of the shell. 

In the following descriptions it should be remarked that I 
have referred to “ Eggs of the Birds of Europe,” by H. E. 
Dresser, Parts VII. and VIII., plate 4, and also to “ Eggs of 
British Birds,’ by Henry Seebohm, plate 58.* Mr. Dresser 
figures six types, Mr. Seebohm four only, and, curiously, the 
one type not figured by Mr. Dresser. To have done full justice 
to this article I should have preferred to have had plates 
specially drawn, however, I trust that I have made myself 
as clear as possible in referring to those mentioned. Some 
interesting points have been brought to light in connection 
with the description of these various types. Most noticeable 
among them is the slight variation in the thickness and 
texture of the shell. A fact which I think is pretty generally 
known is that some types occur much less frequently than 
others, as is also the case with the eggs of the Red-backed 
Shrike and others. Locality, or climatic conditions have 
apparently nothing whatever to do with these variations. I 
have received the whole seven distinct types, from as many 
different localities ; continental eggs exhibited precisely the 
same types. 

MorttieD Type (No. 1)—Brick-red, very distinct. 

GROUND coLouR.—White. The markings are so close as 
almost to obliterate the ground colour, though there is generally 
one or more eggs in a clutch in w hich the ground colour is 
fairly conspicuous. 

MarkKINGsS, normal.— Rich brick-red to light red (Dresser, 
pl. 4, No. 15), mottlings very close. Haxtreme type—Mottlings 
obliterate ground colour. Modified type—Markings well 
defined, ground colour conspicuous, shell markings more or 
less absent (Dresser, pl. 4, No. 13). A rare variety of this 
type occurs in which the markings are bold and well defined 
(Dresser, pl. 4, No. 22) which is intermediate between the 
red mottled type (No. 1) and the red spotted, or blotched, 
type (No. 4). This variety has also a slight suspicion of shell 
markings of purplish grey. Fine hair-like scrollings at the 
broad end occur in this type. 

* These works will throughout the rest of this paper be quoted 
simply as ‘‘ Dresser, pl. 4, No. —,”’ and ‘‘ Seebohm, pl. 58.” 


SHAPE.—Normal, a short conical oval, sometimes fully 
rounded. Narrow pointed ovals occur less frequently. 

SHELL.—Finely grained, glossy, sometimes dull, fairly thick 
and strong for the size. 

Morttep Tyre (No. 2)—Purplish-red, distinct. 

GROUND CoLouR.—White. The markings do not obliterate 
the ground colour so much as in type No. 1. 

Markines.—In general appearance similar to the mottled 
brick-red type (No. 1). The purplish tint is caused by the 
presence of minute purplish-grey shell markings, which are 
conspicuous, though the pigment markings are distinctly 
purplish in tinge. Very little variation occurs in this type, 
which is constant and well set, the fine hair-like scrollings 
do not occur so frequently as in No. 1 (Dresser, pl. 4, 
No. 14). 

SHAPE.—Similar to No. 1, but the full rounded shape is more 
frequent. Narrow pointed ovals occur. 

SHELL.—Similar in every respect to No. 1, except that there 
is less gloss. 

MotrLeD Tyres (No. 3)—Sepia-brown, very distinct. 

GROUND CoLoUR.—Greyish-white to white; sometimes dis- 
tinctly pale greenish blue. Compared with the two other 
mottled types, the ground colour is conspicuous, except in the 
extreme type in which the mottlings are so close as almost to 
obliterate it. 

Marxkines.—Precisely the same in general arrangement as 
in types Nos. land 2. Normal—Mottled rich sepia-brown, shell 
markings brownish-grey, very inconspicuous, but in some 
cases sufficiently present to alter the general appearance to 
a greyish purple-brown (Dresser, pl. 4, Nos. 17 and 18). 
Extreme type—Appearance entirely altered by the running 
together of the mottlings, which form dark patches of colour, 
giving this type an intermediate appearance between the 
normal of this and the brown spotted, or blotched, type 
No. 5. Modified type—Precisely the same in appearance, 
but several shades paler in colour; fine hair-like markings 
occur, as in types 1 and 2. The normal of this type is 
often confused with the egg of the Meadow-Pipit, and in 
general appearance it somewhat resembles the egg of that 
species, except in shape, size, and texture. The eggs of the 
Meadow-Pipit, as a rule, do not show so much gloss. 

SHELL.—Similar in every respect to type No. 1. 

SHaPE.—Goes through the same variation as type No. 1. 


SPOTTED, or BLoTCHED, TypxE (No. 4)—Red, very distinct. ~ 

GrouNnD CoLour.—Varies considerably from palest grey 
and red, to white tinged with purple or mauve. This great 
variation is brought about by very minute shell markings, 
spots, and cloudings of varying shades of red, purple, and 
reddish-brown, so closely conglomerated as to alter the entire 
appearance of the actual ground colour. 

Marxkines.—The variation in the markings is even - more 
marked than in the ground colour. Normal—Rich reddish- 
brown cloudings, evenly distributed spots with very dark 
centres, marginated with paler shades with eye-spots of very 
dark brown, a few hair-like lines of the same colour as the 
margins of the eye-spots, shell markings few and very in- 
conspicuous (Dresser, pl. 4, Nos. 19 and 20). Modified type 
—Markings more or less confined to the broad ends, similar 
in arrangement, except that the shell markings are more 
conspicuous, and of a purplish tinge (Dresser, pl. 4, No. 21). 
Extreme type—Markings take the form of short scrollings and 
cloudings. Other markings are present, but to a very slight 
extent, and are small and inconspicuous (Dresser, pl. 4, No. 
16). This type is much more subject to variation than the 

SHAPE.—Inclined towards pointed ovals, rather more than 
in the other six types. 

SHELL.—Fragile compared with the mottled types, finely 
grained, moderately glossy, sometimes glossless. 

SPOTTED, or BLOTCHED, TyPE (No. 5)—Brown, very distinct. 

GROUND coLouR.—From palest brown to brownish-grey. 
In some cases there is a slight suspicion of purplish-grey. 
In the modified type the ground colour is conspicuous, in the 
normal and extreme types it is almost obliterated by the 

Markines.—Precisely the same in arrangement as in type 
No. 4 except that there is a tendency to form dark caps. 
Normal—Clouded rich brown, eye-spots black-brown, mar- 
ginated with paler brown, small fine short scrollings of the 
same colour as the eye-spots. Shell-markings, rich brown- 
grey, inconspicuous. Hatreme type—Rich brown spots and 
cloudings, ground colour almost obliterated ; shell-markings 
inconspicuous or totally absent. Modified type—Finely dotted 
and ‘“ short-scrolled’’ with rich brown; ground colour con- 
spicuous (Dresser, pl. 4, No. 23). This type is constant, well 
set, and subject to little variation. 

SHAPE.—Broad ovals, sometimes slightly pointed. 


SHELL.—Very fragile, finely grained, displaying more gloss 
than in the other types. 

SPOTTED, or BLOTCHED, Tyre (No. 6)—Purplish brown, very 

GROUND coLouR.—Purplish-grey, giving the whole egg a 
distinctly purplish appearance. The ground colour in this type 
is very conspicuous and seldom obliterated by the markings. 

MarRKINGS.—Similar in arrangement and appearance to 
types Nos. 4 and 5, except that the markings are more pro- 
minent and better defined. Normal—EKye-spots and short 
scrollings, rich purplish-brown, marginated with paler shades, 
cloudings pale purple-grey ; shell markings, dark purplish- 
grey, few. Hatreme type—Markings more abundant and 
richer in colour, ground colour is also darker by several shades. 
Shell markings almost absent. Modified type—Similar in 
general appearance, but the ground colour more conspicuous. 
Markings form zones, or caps; shell-markings conspicuous 
(Dresser, pl. 4, No. 24). This type is constant, well fixed, 
and subject to less variation than No. 4. 

SHAPE.—Goes through precisely the same variations as in 
types Nos. 4 and 5. 

SHELI..—Thin and fragile, but less so than in types Nos. 
4 and 5. 

SPOTTED, or BLotcHED, TyPsE (No. 7)—Green ground, distinct. 

GROUND COoLOUR.—Very conspicuous, and distinctly green- 
ish, giving the whole egg a green appearance, which separates 
it from types Nos. 4, 5 and 6. 

Markincs.—In appearance similar to types Nos. 4, 5 and 6, 
but as a rule more evenly distributed and better defined. 
Normal—Kye-spots and short scrollings, rich umber to sepia- 
brown, marginated with paler shades, cloudings pale brown ; 
shell markings pale purplish-brown (Seebohm, pl. 58a, third 
from right). Hxtreme type—Eye-spots very dark brown, less 
marginated than in the normal; ground colour inclined 
towards olive-brown; shell markings almost absent. The 
markings sometimes form caps and zones, giving the egg a 
very rich appearance. Modified type—Similar, except that 
the short scrollings predominate; ground colour more 
conspicuous ; shell markings dark grey-brown, few, sometimes 
quite absent. This type occurs much less frequently than any 
of the other six types, but is distinct and well fixed. 

SHAPE.—Similar to that in types Nos. 4, 5 and 6, but there 
is a tendency towards a smaller size. 

SHELL.—Very thin and fragile, rather more gloss than in the 
other types. 


To compile a complete bibliography of a subject which has 
attracted so much attention for so many years as the orni- 
thology of this country would be a task of great magnitude, and 
so far as we know no such bibliography has been attempted, 
although we have had most useful papers on the subject by 
Dr. Elliott Coues in the ‘‘ Proceedings of the U.S. Museum ”’ 
(1880), and in Mr. Miller Christy’s ‘‘ Catalogue of Local Lists ”’ 
(1891), as well as by the late Professor Newton in the 
‘“‘ Dictionary of Birds.” A valuable contribution towards the 
subject has just reached us in the form of a pamphlet entitled 
‘A List of Books relating to British Birds published before the 
Year 1815.” These are from the hbrary of our contributor, 
Mr. W. H. Mullens, and the pamphlet forms an “ Occasional 
Publication No. 3,” of the Hastings and St. Leonards Natural 
History Society. Seven plates giving facsimiles of rare and 
notable editions will be much appreciated, while the extremely 
carefully drawn up details of the works themselves cannot fail 
to be of the greatest value. We are glad to see the words 
“to be continued ” at the end of the pamphlet, and we would 
suggest that if those who possess valuable ornithological 
libraries would co-operate with Mr. Mullens the task of 
forming a bibliography of British birds might be accomplished. 



In Vol. I., page 354, we called attention to an offer by the 
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds of a gold medal and 
a prize of twenty guineas for the best essay on the subject 
of “*Comparative Legislation for the Protection of Birds.” 
This prize has been awarded to Mr. A. H. Macpherson, while 
a second prize of ten guineas has been given to Lieut.-Colonel 
G. A. Momber.—Eps. 


Dr. Ernst Hartrert has already described in these pages 
(Vol. I., pp. 208-222, Vol. II., pp. 130-131) a number of 
geographical races of birds which are peculiar to the British 
Islands. At the meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Club 
held on January 20th last, he called attention to the differ- 

NOTES. 341 

ences between British and Continental examples of the Song- 
Thrush. He pointed out that the non-migratory race breeding 
in Great Britain and Ireland differed in the warmer, more 
rufous, colour of the upper surface, especially the rump. 
These parts are more olive-brown, generally paler, and with 
a faint greenish tinge, in the birds breeding on the Continent 
and migrating to the Mediterranean countries in winter. 
The underside of the British race was often more heavily 
spotted, and this was especially conspicuous in specimens 
from the Hebrides, while others from the same islands were 
in every way similar to English examples. For this reason 
Dr. Hartert did not, for the present, distinguish more than 
one British race, which he proposed to call Turpus 
PHILOMELOS CLARKEI, in honour of Mr. Eagle Clarke, who had 
first called his attention to the dark coloration of the British 
race. ‘The difference had also been noticed by other British 
ornithologists. Dr. Hartert mentioned that the correct 
name of the Song-Thrush was T'urdus philomelos, the first 
description of 7’. musicus undoubtedly referring to the 
Redwing ; while the name 7’. cliacus was not available at all, 
as in the first instance it referred to three distinct species, 
viz., the Song-Thrush, Mistle-Thrush, and Redwing. 

While we thoroughly agree with Dr. Hartert in his separation 
of these races, and applaud his good work, we think it only 
right to state that we cannot agree with him in abolishing old 
and well-known names and substituting for them names 
which are quite unknown to the average ornithologist. Dr. 
Hartert adheres most strictly to certain rules in order to 
secure stability in nomenclature, but in many cases, such for 
instance as the present, these rules act in our opinion in a 
directly opposite way to that which was intended, in that 
they disrupt the past. The Song-Thrush has been called 
“Turdus musicus”’ in countless books and papers, and if we now 
alter that name surely we show no regard for the past, while 
to the future ornithologist the innumerable references to this 
bird under the name of 7’. musicus will be obscured. With 
no wish to argue such an intricate question in these pages 
we can but state our firm conviction that to adhere strictly 
to a rule in such a case as this amounts to making the rule a 
fetish. Having no wish to be the blind slave of any rule, 
we are determined to call the British Song-Thrush T'urdus 
musicus clarke. 

In part V. of Dr. Hartert’s work (Die Vog. der pal. Fauna, 
p. 601) we note that he separates the Dartford Warbler of 
England and North-west France from the typical bird of 


the continent under the name of Sylvia undata dartfordiensis 
of Latham, by reason of its slightly smaller size, its dull, 
chocolate-brown, instead of slaty-grey, upperside, and by the 
flanks being washed with brown instead of grey.—EDs. 


Ir may be of interest to record that a specimen of Phylloscopus 
trochilus eversmanni (cf. antea, Vol. II., p. 234) was shot on the 
Norfolk coast during the second week of May, 1908. Another 
specimen shot in the same locality during the month of 
September is of greater interest, because Dr. C. B. Ticehurst 
had not detected this bird in the autumn. Both specimens 
have been examined by Dr. Ticehurst, and the autumn bird 
exhibits in its plumage practically none of the green and 
yellow characteristic of the typical Willow-Wren. 


Another example of this race shot at Cley, Norfolk, in 
October, 1901, has been very kindly submitted to me by Mr. 
Ernest M. Connop, of Wroxham, in whose collection it now is. 
The bird, which has been examined by Dr. Ticehurst and myself, 
is greyish-brown on the upperside and greyish-white on the 
underside and has no green or yellow (except in the axillaries) 
in its plumage. The eyestripe is white. An additional 
interest attaches to this specimen in that it was examined by 
Howard Saunders, and I am indebted to Mr. Connop for a 
view of a letter regarding the bird which Howard Saunders 
wrote to Mr. Pashley, of Cley. Although it was not his 
practice to distinguish very closely allied forms by name, 
and although he makes no reference to this race in his 
‘* Manual,” it is clear from the letter that Howard Saunders 
fully recognised its characteristics. “* Your bird,” he wrote 
to Mr. Pashley, “is (in my opinion, of course) simply a Willow- 
Wren Ph. trochilus, but it is a very interesting example—and 
quite an old bird—of the northern form, which, as Seebohm 
says (Cat. Birds B. M., V., p. 58) ‘ occasionally in high northern 
latitudes has all the green and yellow abraded and the general 
plumage earthy-brown, the eyestripe having faded to greyish- 
white and the underparts also to white.’ The wing-formula 
is absolutely that of the Willow-Wren, and one of Seebohm’s 
specimens from the Yenesei, Siberia, matches your bird 

Seebohm’s opinion that the brown and grey colouring was 
produced. by fading and abrasion is now, of course, proved to 
be an error, since spring specimens exhibit the same 

NOTES. 343 

As some confusion still exists in the minds of some of my 
correspondents with regard to the various races of Willow- 
Wrens and Chiffchaffs which have now been detected as 
occurring in this country, it may be well to summarise the 

THe TypicaL WILLOw-WREN (P. trochilus trochilus). 

THE NORTHERN WILLOW-WREN (P. trochilus eversmannt).— 
Now found to occur both on the autumn and spring passage, 
but apparently much more frequently in the spring. Breeds in 
Northern Russia, from the Kolyma westwards to the Timan 
Hills, and possibly to Norway (c/. supra, p. 234). Except in 
the axillaries there is practically no green or yellow in its 

THe TypicaL CuHirrcHarF (P. rufus rufus). 

THe East EvRopEAN CHIFFCHAFF (P. rujus abietina).— 
So far has only once been detected in this country (cf. supra, 
p. 233). Breeds in Scandinavia, Russia (south of 65°), East 
Prussia, Austria, and the Balkans. It is of slightly larger size 
and paler coloration than the typical form. 

THE SIBERIAN CHIFFCHAFF (P. rufus tristis)—Has been 
found on several occasions in winter in the Orkney and 
Shetland groups (cf. Vol. I., pp. 8 and 382). Breeds in Siberia 
from the Petchora to Lake Baikal. LEasily distinguishable by 
its very brown upperside, grey underside, brownish flanks, 
and bright golden axillaries. 



Mr. R. J. Luoyp-Pricst, of Rhiwlas, Bala, informs me that 
last year a pair of Lesser Spotted Woodpeckers (Dendrocopus 
minor) nested in an oak-tree close to his head-keeper’s house. 
They hatched and reared the young, but all left before winter. 
This is the first recorded instance of the species breeding in 
North Wales so far to the west as Merioneth, where, indeed, 
it has hitherto been met with only occasionally. 

H. E. Forrest. 


Mr. Liuoyp-PricE writes me that a Hoopoe (Upwpa epops) 
appeared on the lawn at Rhiwlas, Bala, one day in August, 
1907. He watched it for a considerable time walking about, 
and every now and then erecting its crest. The Hoopoe is 
very rare in Wales, and has only once before been recorded in 
Merioneth. H. E. Forrest. 



Aw adult female specimen of the Little Owl (Athene noctua) 
was shot at Barston, Warwickshire, on November 15th or 
16th, 1908, by Mr. Russell. It is not the Sutton Coldfield 
specimen already recorded (antea, Vol. II.,p. 240). The distance 
between the two places would be fifteen to twenty miles. 
No other specimen has been seen by Mr. Russell. 

Another example was shot at King’s Norton, Worcester- 
shire, on October 14th, 1907. This bird rose from a ditch, 
and the gentleman who shot it mistook it for a Woodcock ! 
Another has been seen there since, and I have urged the 
gentleman not to shoot it. Both my specimens are adult 

F. CoBuRN. 


THat the Common Eider (Somateria molissima) feeds mainly 
on shell-fish is well known, yet the following summary of the 
results of a number of dissections which I have made may be 
of interest to the readers of BririsH Brrps. 

On one occasion I found the remains of a crab in the gizzard, 
and of a crab and starfish in the crop. 

‘“‘ Periwinkles ’’? seem to be very commonly eaten. I have 
taken as many as twenty of their shells from a single gizzard. 

In many Eiders a bulge in the throat may often be seen, 
and on examination this proves to be caused by a “ Razor- 
sheil ” (Hnsis siliqua), locally known as the “‘ Spute-fish,” and 
used by the fishermen as a bait. Sometimes one valve of the 
shell is missing. Examples as long as eight inches are some- 
times swallowed, and often one end of the shell is broken, 
leaving a jagged edge. The dissolution of the contained 
animal evidently takes place in the crop, and the shell is, we 
may assume, ejected, as other birds eject pellets, since it could 
never pass through the intestines. It is curious that Razor- 
shells are never found in birds killed in the early morning. 

The shells of univalves are disintegrated, partly, apparently 
by the action of the gastric juices, and partly by the trituration 
of the gizzard. 

The Eider is aiso fond of limpets. My boatman once reared 
an Kider drake, which was the terror of the limpet-pickers on 
the island, for it would steal the limpets as fast as they were 
detached from the rocks, and would attack the pickers with 
great spirit, using beak, wings, and feet, should they object to 
the levying of this toll! H. W. Rosinson. 

NOTES. 345 


HirHerRTO the only known instance of the occurrence of 
(Hdemia fusca in Shropshire was an adult male found 
exhausted near Whitchurch on November 23rd, 1866. It was 
preserved by John Shaw, of Shrewsbury, who recorded it at 
the time in the “Field.” Mr. F. Coburn, of Birmingham, 
recently informed me of a second example which came into 
his hands—an immature female shot on December 12th, 1890, 
at Clungunford, near Ludlow, by Mr. Graham Williams. 

H. E. Forrest. 


Ir is recorded in Howard Saunders’ ‘‘Manual” that the 
Wood-Pigeon is pushing northwards, and breeds locally and 
sparingly in the Orkney Islands. It may be interesting to 
note that during the last two years—1907-08—I have found 
the bird breeding in increasing numbers in the Island of 
Shapinshay, Orkney Islands. I noticed in 1907 at least two 
pairs in the trees round Balfour Castle, and last year I shot 
two and picked up one young bird dead in the garden of 
Balfour Castle, and frequently saw eight or nine birds on the 
grass opposite the castle. I may add the bird is most 
destructive in the garden at Balfour, and already the damage 
done is considerable to the kitchen garden crops. 



As the note in the last number of BririsH Brrps (p. 311) 
conveys the impression that Lord Forester’s specimens are 
the only examples of the rufous form of Partridge obtained 
in Shropshire, it may be of interest to state that it has been 
met with in several places. There is a specimen in the British 
Museum from Acton Reynald, near Shrewsbury. An example 
described in the “ Field,’ November, 1902, was shot at 
Farmcote, near Bridgnorth. arlier in the same year Mr. H. L. 
Horsfall obtained four Partridges at Gatacre Park, Bridgnorth, 
one of which he sent me for examination. It was of the same 
dark red hue as P. montana beneath, but the back was 
beautifully spangled with creamy-white, on adark ground. It 
closely resembled the variety figured by Mr. Frohawk in the 
“ Field,” February 13th, 1897. A similar bird in the museum at 
Whitchurch, Salop, was shot near that place in the autumn 
of 1902, by Mr. J. M. Etches, who informed me that there 


were several others like it in the covey. Three examples of 
the typical P. montana were shot at Albrighton, near 
Shrewsbury, on October 6th, 1905. 

H. E. Forrest. 

[Mr. J. R. B. Masefield kindly sends us a copy of a paper 
on a number of occurrences of this variety in Staffordshire 
which he contributed to the “Transactions of the North 
Staffordshire Field Club” (1902, pp. 65-68, with Plate), and 
he tells us that he has examined from time to time examples 
showing almost every possible gradation between what may 
be termed the true P. montana and the normal P. cinerea. 
The erythristic variety of the Partridge, as is well-known, 
constantly occurs and recurs in many parts of this country, 
and the subject is of considerable interest in that no satis- 
factory reason, so far as we know, has as yet been adduced 
to explain the much more persistent nature of erythrism in 
this, than in apparently in any other, species.—EDs. | 

RaRE BrirRDs ON THE ISLE oF May (FirtH oF FortTH).—We 
referred in our last volume (p. 295) to the results of a visit 
to this island in 1907 by two energetic lady ornithologists. 
In 1908 the island was again visited by Miss Evelyn V. Baxter, 
from September 10th to October 9th, and we extract the most 
important results from her paper in the “ Annals of Scottish 
Natural History’ (1909, pp. 5-20). ReEp-sporrED BLUE- 
THROAT (Cyanecula suecica).—Single birds were seen on 
September 22nd and 23rd, two on the 24th, and several on 
the 25th, and one on October 5th. YELLOW-BROWED 
WARBLER (Phylloscopus swperciliosus)—One on September 
22nd, one on the 24th, one on the 25th, and another on October 
3rd. British Coau Tir (Parus ater britannicus).—One _ pro- 
cured October Ist. British BiuE Tit (Parus ceruleus 
obscurus).—One on September 30th. [Both these records 
are interesting as there is little proof that Tits are wanderers. 
Waite Wagcrtait (Motacilla alba).—Four or five adults on 
September 20th. GrEeAT GREY SHRIKE (Lanius excubitor).— 
One on October 25th. ScarLter GrRosBEak (Pyrrhula ery- 
thrina).—An adult female on September 12th. 

Miss Baxter also kindly informs us that the Ropins and 
GOLDCRESTS which she obtained have been examined at the 
Royal Scottish Museum and pronounced to be of the British 

caught a female or immature male Ruticilla titys at Cappagh 

NOTES. 347 

House, on November 4th, 1908, and before liberating it he 
saw another on the window sill. On the same date in 1907 
he caught one in his bedroom, and on November 2nd of that 
year he saw another, while two were caught in his house in 
1895, on October 29th and November 2nd (Irish Nat., 
1909, p. 26). 

seen at close range by Mr. A. B. Farn near the River Wye 
on January 9th last, is said by him to have been without. 
doubt an example of Phylloscopus sibilatrix (Zool., 1909, 
Pp. 25): 

DrerER IN Kent.—Mr. A. H. Hardy writes to the “ Field ” 
(19, xir., 08, p. 1103) that he saw a Dipper (Cinclus aquaticus) 
on the River Stour on December 11th, 1908. The species 
is a rare straggler to Kent. Dr. N. F. Ticehurst tells us 
that he has notes of some dozen occurrences, and adds that: 
the bird is supposed to have nested on one occasion at Chart- 
ham, not far from the locality of the present record. 

District.—Mr. H. B. Booth records the scarcity of the 
Long-tailed Tit in Upper Airedale and Upper Wharfedale 
(West Yorkshire). Only three occurrences of the bird in 
the breeding season are known during the last fifteen years, 
although a few years before it nested annually in these 
districts, and does so commonly in adjoining districts. No 
reason can be assigned for the desertion of the neighbourhood 
by the bird (Nat., 1909, pp. 55-57). 

CoaL-TITMOUSE ON THE Bass Rockx.—Mr. W. Evans reports 
that two Parus ater occurred on the Bass Rock on September 
28th, 1908. Only a wing and leg were sent to him, so that he 
could not say whether the birds were British or Continental 
(Ann. S.N.H., 1909, p. 49). 

Late Stay oF SwaALLtow IN IRELAND.—An immature 
Hirundo rustica was seen (and unfortunately shot) on December 
9th, 1908, near Clondalkin, co. Dublin (W. J. Williams, Jrish 
Nat., 1909, p. 56): 

lings (Fringilla montifringilla) were seen on October 25th, 
1908, at Inchnadamph. The bird has not hitherto been 
identified in this area (J. T. Henderson, Ann. S.N.H., 1909, 
p: 47). 


SNow-GEESE IN co. Mayo.—A flock of four Chen hyperboreus 
were seen flying over Bartragh Island by Mr. Claud Kirkwood 
‘“‘a day or so after December 29th, 1908.” They were easily 
recognised by their snow-white plumage and black-tipped 
wings (R. Warren, Zool., 1909, p. 77). For previous records 
of this species in the same district see page 27 of the present 

GADWALL IN FirEesHiIRE.—A young male Chaulelasmus 
streperus was shot near Tayport on November 14th, 1908. 
The bird is of irregular occurrence on the east coast of 
Scotland (W. Berry, Ann. S.N.H., 1909, p. 49). 

St. Quintin, of Scampston, East Yorkshire, writes to the 
‘“‘ Naturalist ” (1909, p. 38) that an entirely wild pair of 
Garganey (Querquedula circia) made a nest in May, 1908, near 
the River Derwent, the female laying some eight eggs. These, 
being in a dangerous place, were taken, and from them four 
drake and two duck Garganeys were reared. 

ApuLt Lone-TaILeD Duck INLAND.—An adult female 
Harelda glacialis was shot on the Spey forty miles from the 
sea in October, 1908 (J. R. Pelham Burn, Ann. S.N.H., 1909, 
p- 49). 

TurTLE-DovE In co. DoNnEGAL IN WinTER.—An adult 
male T'urtur communis (scarce at any time in Ireland) was 
shot among some Wood-Pigeons near Muff, co. Donegal, on 
November 30th, 1908 (D. C. Campbell, Irish Nat., 1909, 
p- 96). 

records in the ‘‘ Zoologist”’ (1909, p. 78) that a Mr. Bennett 
shot a Great Bustard near Scarborough ‘ about last Christmas- 
time,’ which he had cooked and found superior in delicacy to 
a Turkey! Although the skin was not preserved, we find 
on enquiry that two of the tail-feathers were, and Mr. 
Oxley Grabham informs us that these have been positively 
identified as those of a female Silver-Pheasant! It is well to 
make sure of the facts before putting into print the record of 
a rarity. 

Erratum.—We regret that in the last number, on p. 310, 
the scientific name of Montagu’s Harrier was given by a slip 
as Circus ceruginosus instead of C. cineraceus.—EDs. 


MONTHLY: gesmunre ‘NET 



Naturalists’ Cane 

, For Telephoto. or Ordinary LENSES. 
Positive Lens Works at f/4. 
Lenses are used 
_. by the most — 
| skilled Bird 

The RA are 
specially recommended :» 

THE STIGMATIC SERIES I. F/6 (Convertible) 

(A Rapid Long Focus Lens at a Moderate Price.) 

High or Moderate Power Telephoto Lenses (Original Make). 

We are Specialists tn Cameras and Apparatus for Photo- Ornathalgists, 

| J. H. DALLMEVER, Limirep, benziL ao,. 

Showrooms: 25, NEWMAN ST., pre NEASOEN, LONDON, N.W. 

Birdskins from Siberia, Mongolia, South Russia, etc., including veeaind® 

interesting ‘species. In fine condition. 
f For Particulars apply to— 


Naturalist and Importer of Zoological Collections, 

| Price Lists of Birdskins, Eggs, Mammals, Reptiles, Batrachians, agian 
Lepidoptera, Apparatus, etc., post free on Application. 


; Haturalists, : 
f And Manufacturers of CABINETS and APPARATUS for Entomology: Birds’ Fees 
and Skins, and all Branches of Natural History. i 
Speciality: —Objects for Nature Study, Drawing Classes, &c. 


All Books and Publications on pana iioeine keiniien., 

36, STRAND, LONDON, W.G. ve Doors tum Charing Gross.) 

Catalogue (102 PP.) post frees 

if ‘ 


tei Eee 

pl od Lah 



F. Bacon, after the pi 




from the engrav 
by James 






POE > BY ~H. Fe WITHERBY,--F.Z.S.;° M.B.0:U. 
Rosier) BY: W. P. PYCRAFY, A.LS., M.B.0.U. 

ConTENTS OF NuMBER I11, Vou. II. Aprit 1, 1909. 

Some Early British Ornithologists and their Works, by 
W. H. Mullens, mM.a., Lu.mM., M.B.o.u.. WVIIJI.—Thomas 
Bewick (1753—1828) and George Montagu (1751—1815). Page 351 

Marking Birds: Notes on the Work at the Rossitten 
Station, by A. Landsborough Thomson 362 

On the More Important Additions to our Ruowindes of 
British Birds since 1899, by H. F. Witherby and N. F. 
Ticehurst. Part XIX.—(continued from page 334) .. 368 

Notes :—Notes from Sussex (J. Walpole-Bond). Rare Birds 
in Pembrokeshire (W. Maitland Congreve, Lieut. R.A.). 
Bird Protection in Yorkshire (Eds.) The Birds of 
Kent (Eds.) Black-throated Thrush in Kent (Thomas 
Parkin). Curious Nesting Site of a Wood-Warbler (W. 
S. Medlicott), Chaffinch Breeding in Winter (H. E. 
Forrest). Alpine Swift in Pembrokeshire (Charles J. 
P. Cave). Downy Woodpecker (Dendrocopus pubescens) 
in Gloucestershire (Wm. A.Smalleombe). White-tailed 
Eagle in Essex (Christopher J. H. Tower). Osprey in 
Essex (Christopher J. H. Tower). Pochard Nesting in 
North Kent (J. Walpole-Bond). The Food of the Eider 
(Eds.). Goosander in Bedfordshire (The Duchess of 
Bedford). Red Grouse and Black Grouse Hybrids (J. G. 
Millais and W. R. Ogilvie-Grant). The Bill of the Great 
Northern Diver (The Duchess of Bedford). Fulmar 
Petrel in Lancashire (H. W. area Little Ringed 
Plover in North Uist au ; = ae 376 


W. H. MULLENS, m.a., LL.M., M.B.O.U. 
VIII—THOMAS BEWICK (1753—1828) anp 

GEORGE MONTAGU (1751—1815). 

It is difficult to determine what position Thomas Bewick 

holds among the principal British ornithologists; it is 

difficult indeed to determine whether he was, in the 
strict sense of the word, an ornithologist at all. It was 
by a series of entirely unforeseen events that Bewick 


found himself called upon to write even a portion of the 
famous “ History of British Birds ” that bears his name, 
and it certainly cannot be said that the text of that work 
contains anything of much originality or importance. 
“Tt is respectable but no more,” and would by itself, 
founded as it was on the style of Pennant, and admittedly 
deriving most of its information from his works,* in all 
probability have attracted but scant and passing attention. 
And yet this work of Bewick has met with extraordinary 
success, it has passed through edition after edition; it 
has instructed and delighted thousands upon thousands 
of readers, and has in the opinion of onet who was fully 
competent to judge, done more than any other work in 
existence, Gilbert White’s ‘‘ Natural History of Selborne ” 
alone excepted, to promote the study and pursuit of 
ornithology in this country. 

This great popularity and widespread influence of 
Bewick’s “ History of British Birds” arose solely from 
the brilliance and fidelity of the wood-cuts, with which 
he was able to illustrate that work. 

What Bewick and his fellow-author together entirely 
failed to do with the pen, he alone most successfully 
accomplished with the burin and the graver. Such was 
Bewick’s skill, and so wonderful his power of transferring 
his impressions to paper, that his engravings of birds, 
especially of those which he was enabled to draw from 
life, or from freshly-killed specimens, remain even to this 
day amongst the finest black and white illustrations of 
the kind which we possess. Their effect therefore at 
the time of their appearance,{ and for many years after- 
wards, may be easily understood, and this, coupled with 
the fact of Bewick’s general renown as an artist and with 
the charm of the curious and often beautiful tail-pieces 
with which he and his pupils adorned his work, made 

* «* Memoir of Thomas Bewick,”’ p. 162. 

+ Newton, “ Dict. of Birds,” Introd., p. 19. 

{ Pennant’s fourth edition of the “ British Zoology,” which appeared 

in 1776, contained numerous plates of birds, but they were not very 


his name one to be ever associated with the study of 
British ornithology. Claims to be considered a scientific 
naturalist he had none, and yet his works will be 
remembered and revered, when those of far more erudite 
and accomplished writers have passed away. 

Many books have been written about Thomas Bewick, 
his art, and his “life and times,” but by far the best 
account of the artist and his work is to be derived from 
the “ Memoir” which he compiled between the years 
1822 and 1828, and on which he was still engaged at the 
time of his death.* It was written for the information 
of his daughter Jane and her brother and sisters, and is 
a bulky volume of some 316 pages. From it we learn 
that Thomas Bewick was born in August, 1753,+ at his 
father’s house of Cherryburn, near Eltringham, in 
Northumberland, and was baptized at the neighbouring 
church of Ovingham, on August 19th of that same year. 
Thomas was the eldest son of John Bewick, who farmed 
some eight acres of land at Cherryburn, and leased a 
small colliery at Mickley Bank. 

Of Bewick’s somewhat tempestuous youth it is here 
necessary to say but little; he was educated first at 
Mickley School, and afterwards by the Rev. C. Gregson, 
of Ovingdean. At a very early age he developed a taste 
for drawing, and in spite of constant reproof for 
‘“misspending ”’ his time, he tells us that “many of my 
evenings at home were spent in filling the flags of the 
floor and the hearthstone with my chalky designs.” 
From this the transition to pen and ink, and brush and 
colour, was rapid ; and the young artist soon commenced 
to decorate the walls of his neighbours’ houses with rude 
pictures, chiefly consisting of hunting scenes. At the 
age of fourteen young Bewick was apprenticed to Ralph 
Beilby, of Newcastle, an engraver i'n a considerable way 
of business. Under Beilby’s tuition Bewick soon began 

* The ‘“‘ Memoir” was first published in 1862 and again in 1887. 

+ Bewick kept his birthday on August 12th, but there is a doubt 
about the exact date. 


to excel as an engraver, and the firm having been “ applied 
to by printers to execute wood-cuts for them,’’* Beilby, 
who had no liking for this branch of engraving, entrusted 
the execution of the blocks to Bewick, who made so good 
a job of it that henceforward orders for this particular 
sort of work increased rapidly. Bewick’s progress in 
engraving was so rapid, and was so well thought of by 
his master, that he sent some of his apprentice’s cuts, 
executed for “Select Fables,’ to the “Society for the 
Encouragement of Arts,’ and for these Bewick received 
a premium of seven guineas. In 1774 Bewick’s apprentice- 
ship came to an end, and he commenced to work on his 
own account, chiefly for Newcastle printers, till the middle 
of 1776. In the summer of that year he made an ex- 
pedition to Scotland, travelling on foot, and afterwards 
went to London, where he arrived in October, 1776. 
Bewick disliked the Metropolis, and returning to 
Newcastle next year, entered into partnership with his 
former master, Ralph Beilby. For some years Bewick 
continued to busy himself with the ordinary work of his 
profession, but at length having come to the conclusion 
that the figures of animals, as they were represented in 
the children’s books then available, were very inferior, 
he resolved to try what he could do in that direction, 
and on the advice of his friend, Solomon Hodgson, book- 
seller and editor of the ‘‘ Newcastle Chronicle,’ he 
commenced on November 15th, 1785, to cut the figure of 
the dromedary,f the first of a series of wood-cuts for the 
‘“ History of Quadrupeds,” which was published in 
1790.£ While Bewick was engaged in drawing and cutting 
the figures for the “‘ History of Quadrupeds ”’ his partner, 
who was of “a bookish or reading turn, proposed to write 
or compile the descriptions, but not knowing much about 
natural history we got books on that subject to enable 


* Memoir,’ p. 59: 

+ Those animals which were not familiar to Bewick were copied from 
Dr. Smellie’s ‘‘ Abridgment of Buffon.” 

t It reached an eighth edition in 1824. 




———— EE, ee 



$$ Oo 8 RS SoA oF TS BES 280, N a 

Aiea Salts Sia Aes 
He Nay Me. oS a tah = 
‘ ALN 

eee a ie Se Se er a <a>? 

ND YS SA aie Oo cher od BO. Rb Be iAP 9) Goa 



{Price il. 1s. in Boards.) 


GEORGE MONTAGU, from the Original Miniature in the possession 
of the Linnzan Society, London. 


him to form a better notion of these matters.” These 
descriptions Bewick helped to revise and correct. When, 
however, the title page was in preparation, Beilby wished 
to appear as the author, and desired the book to be 
announced as being “ by R. Beilby ” ;- but although this 
idea was abandoned through the influence of Mr. Hodgson, 
the foundation of the quarrel between Bewick and Beilby 
was commenced, which finally led to the dissolution of 
their partnership. The ‘History of Quadrupeds ”’ 
proved so great a success, being appreciated by young and 
old alike, that Bewick began to turn his thoughts to a 
“History of British Birds.”* For this purpose he 
commenced to study various works on the subject, and 
informs us that ‘“‘in addition to Pennant’s works, [he] 
perused ‘ Albin’s History of Birds,’ Belon’s very old 
book,+ Willoughby and Ray, ete. Mr. John Rotherham 
gave me ‘ Gesner’s Natural History,’ with some of these 
I was in raptures. Willoughby and Ray struck me as 
having led the way to truth and to British Ornithology. 
.... 1 was much pleased with ‘ White’s History of 
Selborne.’ Pennant, however, opened out the largest 
field of information, and on his works I bestowed the 
most attention. The last of our ornithologists, and one 
of the most indefatigible, was the late Col. George 
Montagu, author of the ‘ Ornithological Dictionary ’”’ 
(Memoir, pp. 161, 162.) 

In addition to the time he devoted to the works 
above mentioned, Bewick, who at the beginning of 
his undertaking had made up his mind “to copy 
nothing from the works of others, but to stick to 
Nature as closely as I could,” availed himself of an 
invitation from Mr. Constable, the owner of ‘‘ Wycliffe,” 

* This project was, however, in full consideration in 1790, vide 

letter from John Bewick (1760-1795). Robinson’s ‘‘ Thomas Bewick : 
his Life and Times,”’ p. 94. 

+ L’Histoire de la Nature des Oyseaux, avec leurs descriptions, & 
naifs portraicts. . . . Par Pierre Belon du Mans, Paris, 1555. 
1 vol. folio. This work of Belon’s, though not so diffuse as Conrad 
Gesner’s ‘*‘ Historia Avium ”’ of the same date, is nevertheless the most 
trustworthy authority of that period. 


to visit the museum there, which contained the collection 
of birds formed by Marmaduke Tunstall.* For nearly 
two months Bewick remained at ‘ Wycliffe,” making 
drawings from the specimens there (some of these being 
in water-colour) and commenced to engrave from them 
as soon as he returned to Newcastle. Finding, however, 
“the very great difference between preserved specimens 

and those from Nature ... . I never felt satisfied with 
them ... . and was driven to wait for birds newly shot 
or brought to me alive.” All this, of course, involved 

considerable delay, but “‘ after working many a late hour 
upon the cuts” the first volume of “ British Birds,” 
entitled “‘ Land Birds,”’ appeared in 1797. “ Mr. Beilby,” 
as Bewick tells us (Memoir, p. 171), “ undertook the 
writing or compilation of this (the first) volume, in which 
I assisted him a great deal more than I had done with the 
* Quadrupeds.’”’ Bewick was therefore surprised to 
find that Beilby was determined on being recognised as 
the sole author of the book. To this claim Bewick 
strongly objected, and although through the intervention 
of mutual friends, the title-page of the first volume 
merely bore the legend ‘ Printed ... for Beilby and 
Bewick,” neither of them being named as authors,t 
they found it impossible to work in harmony any longer, 
and their partnership was dissolved, Bewick buying up 
Beilby’s share in the “‘ Quadrupeds ”’ and the first volume 
of the ~ Birds.” 

Bewick was now thrown upon his own resources as an 
author, and by consulting all the available authorities, 
and making use of his own knowledge and observations, 
he composed the text of the second volume, entitled 
‘ Water-Birds.” This appeared in 1804, and in the 
preface Bewick states that ‘“‘ owing to a separation of 

* Marmaduke Tunstall (1743-1790), the anonymous author of ,the 
‘* Ornithologica Britannica,’’ London, 1771, 1 vol. folio. For an account 
ot his life, vide Fox’s ‘“‘Synopsis of the Newcastle Museum,”’ where his 
collection now is. It was for this same Marmaduke Tunstall that 
ipl had in 1789 executed his famous wood-cut of the ‘‘ Chillingham 

u bah 

tT cf. conclusion of Preface to Ist vol. ‘‘ British Birds.”’ 


interests between the editors .... the compilation 
and completion of the present work devolved upon one 
alone.’ He also acknowledges his obligations to the 
Rev. H. Coates, the vicar of Bedlington, for “ literary 

A facsimile title-page of the first volume of the first 
edition of ‘“ British Birds” is here given, that of the 
second volume is somewhat similar, but Beilby’s name 
does not appear in it. 

The collation of the book is as follows :— 

Vol. 1; pp. XXX., title, preface, introduction and 
contents, + pp. 335, -+ 117 figures of birds, and 91 tail- 

Vol. 2; pp. XX. -+ pp. 400, -+ 101 figures of birds, and 
139 vignettes. 

The first edition was printed on paper of three different 
sizes, viz., imperial, royal, and demy 8vo, that of the latter 
size being of two qualities, thick and thin. The publishing 
prices were 21s., 18s., 13s., and 10s. 6d. respectively, and 
of the imperial paper copies (of the first issue) only 
twenty-four were printed. The prices of the second 
volume being 24s., 18s., and 12s. Of the first volume 
of the ‘“‘ British Birds’? there were two issues, both 
bearing the same date, viz., 1797; the second issue being, 
thowever, printed in 1798. The first issue may be 
determined from the fact that on the reverse of page 335 
the third edition of ‘‘ Bewick’s Quadrupeds ” is announced, 
while in the second, the fourth is advertised.* 

The success of the “ History of British Birds ”’ was 
immediate and complete, six editions were issued in 
Bewick’s lifetime, and in the year 1847, an eighth,f 
edited by John Hancock with great skill, and containing 
some twenty extra tail-pieces, which Bewick had 
executed for a projected “ History of British Fishes,” 

* For further particulars, cf. Newton, ‘* Dict. Birds,”’ Introd., p. 20. 

+ Dates of the eight editions of Bewick’s ‘‘ Birds” are as follows :— 
Ist, 1797-1804; 2nd, 1805; 3rd, 1809; 4th, 1816; 5th, 1821 (with 
Supplement); 6th, 1826; 7th, 1832; 8th and last, 1847. 


appeared, this edition being in many respects the best. 
The “ Birds ” marked Bewick’s high-water mark as an 
artist, the only book of any real importance which he 
subsequently produced being ‘“‘ Aisop’s Fables,” in 1818. 

As has above been mentioned, the value of the 
‘“* History of British Birds ” rests on its wood-cuts alone, 
and although it has been frequently stated that Bewick 
had from his youth upwards a great leaning towards the 
study of birds, a careful investigation seems to show that 
he only possessed the ordinary interest in Nature common 
to most intelligent boys brought up in the country; indeed, 
on his own showing his chief delight as a youth consisted 
in joining the local “‘ hunting parties,”’ and in observing 
the habits of the various “ beasts of the chase.” It is 
true that in his ‘“‘ Memoir” he makes some not infrequent 
mentions of his early observations and interest in orni- 
thology, and he further enlarges on this subject in the 
preface to the sixth edition of his “ Birds”; but it was 
only in human nature that a man who had seen edition 
after edition of his ornithological writings eagerly 
absorbed by the public, should come to consider himself 
as a zoologist, both by inclination as well as study. Be 
this as it may, the excellence of his wood-cuts* stands out 
beyond all doubt or question, and the debt we owe to the 
memory of Thomas Bewick is great and lasting. 

Of the remainder of Thomas Bewick’s life we can here 
make but the briefest mention. His wife (Isabella 
Elhot, of Ovingdean), whom he had married in 1786, died 
in 1826, and in November, 1828, at the ripe old age of 
seventy-five, he followed her to the grave, and lies buried 
by her side in Ovingham churchyard, ‘“ at the west end 
of the church near the steeple.” He continued working 

* Although Bewick seems to have been the first engraver to use 
wood-blocks for the representation of birds with any signal success, 
the process had, of course, been made use of on the Continent for that 
purpose, while in this country it had already been employed in 1743 to 
illustrate a work entitled ‘Ornithologia Nova: or a new General 
History of Birds,” a second edition of which, with a somewhat different 
title, appeared in 1745. 


to the close of his busy life, and when seized with his. 
fatal illness was engaged on a large block entitled, ‘‘ The 
Old Horse waiting for Death.” 

George Montagu, whose *“ Ornithological Dictionary ” 
has already been referred to, as having been issued while 
Bewick was engaged on the compilation of the second 
volume of his “ Birds,” was born at lLackham, in 
Wiltshire, in 1751. He entered the army at an early 
age, and served as a captain in the 15th Regiment of Foot 
during the American War. He afterwards settled down 
at Easton Grey, in Wilts, and became acting colonel 
of the County Militia. He died at Kingsbridge, in 
Devonshire, in August, 1815. Montagu was a. prolific 
writer,* but his reputation rests on his ‘‘ Ornithological 
Dictionary,” a work so able and so well-known that it 
is only necessary to say that its merits have been as widely 
acknowledged abroad as at home; and to quote Coues’ 
dictum “‘It is one of the most notable treatises on 
British Birds, as a vade mecum which has held its place at: 
a thousand elbows for three-quarters of a century.” 

The full title of the book is as follows :— 

Ornithological Dictionary; / or, / Alphabetical 
Synopsis / of / British Birds. / By / George Montagu, 
F.L.S. / In two volumes, / Vol. I. [Vol. II.]. London: / 
Printed for J. White, Fleet Street, / by T. Bensly, Bolt 
Court. / 1802. 

Two Vols. 8vo. Collation: Vol. I. pp. 2 un. + pp. 
XLIII., -+ pp. un. (being sheets B-Y) + Slip of Errata. 
Plate of Cirl Bunting. Vol. II., Title -- pp. un. (sheets. 
B-Y) + Slip of Errata. 

A supplement (unpaged) exceeding in bulk the two 
volumes of the original edition, with 24 plates, was issued 
by Col. Montagu in 1813; and there were numerous 
editions and re-issues after his death. 

* For alist of his works on Natural History vide *‘ Agassiz,’’ Vol. III.,. 
p. 614. 

( 362 ) 




From time to time references have been made in the 
pages of British Brrps * to the work of the various 
investigators who are endeavouring to obtain fuller and 
more accurate data with regard to migration, by liberating 
birds marked with metal foot-rings. It may be of in- 
terest, however, to give a fuller account of the methods 
employed, and of these I was able to gain some knowledge 
during a couple of weeks’ stay last autumn (1908) at 
Rossitten, on the Baltic. Some details of the results 
cbtained there may indicate what may be looked for by 
following similar lines of research. 

A word about the situation of Rossitten: at the very 
south-eastern corner of the Baltic, the River Niemen 
(or Memel) flows through many mouths into a large 
lagoon—the Kurisches Haff. This lagoon is connected 
with the sea by a narrow channel at one end, and for the 
remainder of its length is separated only by a tongue of 
land, or Nehrung, about sixty miles long by from less 
than half a mile to more than two miles broad. It is 
among the “ wandering ”’ dunes—the highest in Kurope— 
on the Kurische Nehrung, that the little out-of-the-way 
fishing village of Rossitten lies. And it is there that the 
German Ornithological Society has established its per- 
manent Vogelwarte, or ornithological station. Lying 
in the midst of a large tract of uninviting country, the 
neighbourhood of Rossitten, combining as it does within 
a small area, examples of many different types of country 
—woods, meadows, sandy wastes, ponds, marshes, reed- 
beds, open shore, and cultivated land—may be regarded 
as a sort of oasis where vast numbers of resting mi- 

* Vol. I., pp. 58, 298, 326; Vol. II., pp. 35, 171, 245, and 246, 


grants of widely different needs and habits congregate. So 
great is the number of migrants passing along the Nehrung, 
and so large the proportion that break their journey 
at Rossitten, that, as a station from which to observe 
migration, it is now regarded as rivalling, if not sur- 
passing, the more famous Heligoland, being inferior only 
in that it is less easily searched. 

For five years now Dr. Thienemann, director of the 
Vogelwarte, has been actively engaged in marking 
birds at Rossitten. The mark employed 
consists of a strip of aluminium bent into 
the form of a ring, with the two ends pro- 
jecting outwards together where they 
meet, and fastened by folding one of 
these ends over the other. The inscription 
engraved on these rings varies with the 
size of the ring. On the Crow and Gull sizes it reads : 
“ Vogelwarte, Rossitten,” followed by a number. On 
the larger sizes, for Storks, etc., ‘“‘ Germania,’ or even 
‘** Ost-Preussen Germania,” is added. On the smaller 
sizes, for Terns, small Waders, small Passerine birds, 
etc., there is no room for anything except the number, 
and consequently very little success has been obtained 
with these birds. The difficulty lies entirely with the 
finder of the bird—once sent in to the Vogelwarte it is 
easy to tell whether the ring is a Rossitten one or not. 
This indicates the need for a new pattern of ring for small 
birds. Dr. Thienemann has rejected the idea of a metal 
label attached to the ring; such a label would interfere 
with the bird too much, and would create a doubt as 
to whether results thus obtained could be regarded as 

Birds are procured for marking at Rossitten in two 
ways. A large number of birds are marked as nestlings, 
not only at Rossitten, but also in other parts of East 
Prussia. The other method is to capture resting 
‘migrants, mark them, and then let them continue 
their journey. Large numbers of Hooded Crows are 


marked in this way every autumn. Huge flocks of these 
birds pass along the Nehrung at this season, and large 
numbers are ingeniously netted—and bitten to death (!)— 
by the Rossitten natives, who preserve them for winter 
food. Many of the birds thus caught uninjured are not 
killed, but are sold alive to the Vogelwarte for marking 
and liberation. About 8 per cent. of these marked Crows 
are killed or recaptured by persons who send them, or 
the rings and feet, or at least notice of the capture, to 
Rossitten. This proportion of returns is far larger than 
was originally expected, and it will probably come as 
a surprise to many. The only other figures I have seen 
are those quoted on p. 246 of this volume of BritisH 
Brrps: the returns for a species so much shot as the 
Woodcock are shown to be scarcely more than 5 per cent. 
The insufficient “‘ address ” given on the rings in that case 
must, however, be taken into account. It must also be 
remembered that on the Continent the Hooded Crow has 
almost the status of a ‘‘ game bird,” shooting Crows 
decoyed by a captive Eagle-Owl being a recognised and 
popular form of sport. 

To show the value of bird-marking I conclude by giving 
short summaries of the results obtained at Rossitten in 
the case of a few species, beginning with the Hooded 
Crow (Corvus cornix). 

The places from which these Crows, marked while 
stopping on migration at Rossitten, have been again 
recorded, lie within a broad belt of country extending from 
southern Finland and the St. Petersburg district of 
Russia, southwards through Livonia and Courland to 
Rossitten, and then westwards, still bounded on one side 
by the Baltic, through northern Germany, and _ ter- 
minating in the north-eastern corner of France (Solesmes). 
The most northerly point from which one of these marked 
birds has been recorded is Wiisala, in the Government 
of St. Michel, Finland (April 20th, 1907: liberated 
October 12th, 1905). From a large number of records 
I select, as fairly representative of the whole series, those 



of birds which were liberated—along with nearly a 
hundred others not heard of again—at Rossitten on the 
same day, October 4th, 1906. 


Feb., 1907. Friedland, Mecklenburg-Strelitz, 
9th April, 1907. Agilla, East Prussia. 
12th April, 1907. Lalendorf, Mecklenburg-Schwerin. 
14th May, 1907. Watnoden, Courland. 
9th June, 1907. Rossitten. 
12th Oct., 1907. Pernau, Livonia. 
7th Dec., 1907. Crefeld, Rheinland. 

There are some interesting records of birds marked 
about the same time and again recorded about the same 
time from the same place :— 

4th Oct., 1906. 9th April, 1907. 
8th Oct., 1906. 14th April, 1907. 
9th Oct., 1904. 12th Oct., 1905. 
20th Oct., 1904. 16th Oct., 1905. 

The second couple of these records also shows that the 
birds passed along the Nehrung at almost the same time 
in the autumn of 1905 as in the previous season. 

Three records which bear upon the time taken upon 
migration, give rather different results :— 


28th March, 1904. 31st March, 1904, Pillkoppen, Kur. Neh. 

16th April, 1904. 17th April, 1904 (morning), Pillkoppen 

(6.30 p.m.) (ca. six miles north-easterly from 
Rossitten. ) 

18th April, 1904. 26th April, 1904, Peterhof, St. Petersb. 

The fact that it was later in the season may account 
for the much greater distance in proportion to the time, 
in the last case than in the first. 


The longest time, so far, between the liberation of a 
marked Crow and its recapture, is four years and a week : 
liberated at Rossitten, October 12th, 1903; shot at the 
mouth of the Vistula, October 20th, 1907. 

The proportion of marked birds again recorded is even 
greater among the Gulls than among the Crows, but this 
is partly explained by the commonness of gull-shooting 
as a form of “sport”? on .the Continent. Moreover, 
one of these larger-sized rings would be visible on a bird 
at some distance. The proportions, as reckoned about 
eighteen months ago, were 12.5 per cent. and 16.6 per cent. 
for Herring-Gulls (Larus argentatus), and Common Gulls 
(L. canus) respectively. One of the latter species marked 
at Rossitten was obtained in the Far6es, so that it is 
probable that some Rossitten birds may reach the 
British Isles. 

Although the proportion is smaller among the Black- 
headed Gulls (L. ridibundus) the total number of returns 
is greater as these birds are marked in large numbers 
as nestlings in a colony at Rossitten. The records have 
shown that, on the approach of winter the birds of this 
colony cross Europe by two routes. One leads south- 
wards, following the Vistula at first it is supposed, over 
Vienna and Trieste to the Adriatic, where quite a number 
have been recorded near the mouth of the Po. One, also, 
has been obtained in the south of Italy, and a bird marked 
on July 26th, 1907, was obtained near Tunis on January 
12th, 1908. The other route follows the Baltic coast 
westwards, crosses to the North Sea, follows the Rhine 
upwards, and reaches the Mediterranean by the Lake of 
Geneva and the valley of the Rhone. 

Storks (Ciconia alba) have been marked in considerable 
numbers, as nestlings, in East Prussia and elsewhere. 
Among those returned are a few from different parts of 
Africa. These include one of a brood of three marked 
by Dr. Thienemann near Konigsberg on June 21st, 1906, 
and one of a brood of three marked near KoOslin, in 
Pomerania, on July 5th, 1907. The ringed foot of 


the first of these was brought by a native to a French 
officer near Lake Chad in October, 1906. The other, 
having left for the south on the 25th or 26th of August, 
when it had been about a fortnight out of the nest, was 
obtained that winter near Fort Jameson, in north-eastern 
Rhodesia: the record came to Dr. Thienemann’s notice 
through a note in the “ Field” for January 25th, 1908 
(p. 150). 

For reasons already explained the returns for the 
smaller species are disappointing, but there are a few 
isolated records of interest. A Dunlin (Tringa alpina), 
for instance, was marked at Rossitten on September 
5th, 1904, and recorded on the 22nd of the same month, 
from the Arenholzer See in Schleswig- Holstein. 

The director of the Vogelwarte earnestly requests that 
anyone finding one of his marked birds, will send him 
the ring and foot, or at least the ring, with full particulars 
as to date and place of capture.* 

* The Editors will be glad to forward any information - to 
Dr. Thienemann, and to publish in these pages the data relating to the 
capture of any marked birds in the British Islands. 

( 368 ) 



Parr XIX. 
(Continued from page 334.) 

BLACK-NECKED GREBE Podicipes nigricollis C. L. Brehm. 
S. page 723. 

OXFORDSHIRE.—A pair shot on a large pond near Bloxham 
on September 19th, 1899, were thought to have bred, or 
attempted to breed, somewhere in the district (O. V. Aplin, 
Ibis, 1902, p. 165, and Zool., 1903, p. 10). 

It was reported by Mr. Aplin in 1904 that some well-known 
ornithologists, who wished to remain anonymous, had 
discovered that several pairs of these birds nested and reared 
their young that year in Britain. The birds were on a shallow 
lake surrounded with marshy ground. Early in June four 
pairs were seen with one, two, two, and three young respec- 
tively, in one part of the lake, while further off was a fifth 
pair with rather larger young and two unattached adults 
(O. V. Aplin, Zool., 1904, pp. 417-420). In 1906 Mr. Aplin 
announced that he had himself been able to pay a visit to the 
place, and had seen four or five adult birds in full breeding 
plumage, but they had not at that time, he thought, yet 
hatched their young (t.c., 1906, p. 315). 

MirppLesex.—The plate in Sowerby’s “ British Miscellany ” 
of a male and female Grebe with nest and eggs taken on a 
pond on Chelsea Common in 1805, and ascribed by Mr. Harting 
(Birds of Middlesex, p. 244, and Handbook, p. 269) to this 
species, is stated by Mr. Aplin to represent Little Grebes in 
summer plumage (Zool., 1904, p. 266). 

CHESHIRE.—One was shot on Dee Marshes, near Chester, 
in November, 1906 (A. Newstead, f.c., 1907, p. 153). 

LaNcASHIRE.—An adult male in full summer plumage 
was caught alive on a pond at Middleton, near Lancaster, on 
July 28th, 1904 (H. W. Robinson, t.c., 1904, p. 350). 

NortTHUMBERLAND.—Two seen in the middle of June were 
in winter plumage (A. Chapman, birdlife of the Borders, 2nd ed., 
p- 94). 


ScoTLaND.—One was shot at Lendalfoot (Ayr) on January 
27th, 1906. The species had not previously been recorded 
in the Clyde area (Ann. S.N.H., 1907, p. 207). 

IRELAND.—A male “coming into summer plumage” was 
shot on Belfast Lough on February 28th, 1907 (W. H. Work- 
man, Zool., 1907, p. 111). Has been obtained in twenty- 
four instances (R. J. Ussher, List of Irish Birds, p. 53). 

Food.—In the stomach of one shot March 2nd, 1898, at 
Strathbeg (Dee area), were found many feathers, amongst 
which were numbers of a _ stalk-eyed crustacean | (ysis 
vulgaris), showing that though killed on a loch, it had shortly 
before been feeding in the sea (G. Sim, Vert. Fauna of Dee, 
p..) 190). 

STORM-PETREL Procellaria pelagica L. S. page 727. 

BREEDING ON THE East Coast.—A pair, at first thought 
to be Fork-tailed Petrels, but afterwards identified as of this 
species, were found breeding on the Bass Rock in 1904 (H.N. 
Bonar, Field, 1904, pp. 908 and 983; W. E. Clarke, Ann. 
S.N.H., 1905, p. 55). 

LEACH’S FORK-TAILED PETREL Oceanodroma leucorrhoa 
(Viedll.). S. page 729. 

Fuannan Isitanps (OuTER HEBRIDES).—Regarded as the 
chief breeding stations of the species in the British Isles. On 
Eilean Mor they are more plentiful than the Storm-Petrel. 
They lay earlier—the first eggs being found on May 29th, 
but their nesting habits are similar. The chicks are sooty- 
black and much darker than those of the Storm-Petrel (W. 
Eagle Clarke, Ann. S.N.H., 1905, p. 86). 

IRELAND.—A very few have been found breeding on islands 
off Mayo and Kerry (R. J. Ussher, List of I. Birds, p. 53). 

(Harcourt). S. page 731. 

A female (the second British example) was shot near Hythe, 
Kent, on November 8th, 1906, while flitting along the shore 
in a tired manner after a heavy south-westerly gale (N. F. 
Ticehurst, Bull. B.O.C., XIX., p. 20). 

WILSON’S PETREL Oceanites oceanicus (Kuhl). 
S. page 733. 

[Surrey.—Four specimens in the Charterhouse Collection 
are said to have been killed on Godalming Pease Marsh, after 


a very severe storm, but no dates are given, and Mr. Bucknill 
does not consider them to be sufficiently authenticated (J. A. 
Bucknill, B. of Surrey, p. 352).] 

GREAT SHEARWATER Puffinus gravis (O'Reilly). 
S. page 737. 

Scitty Istus.—A fairly regular visitor in flocks during 
autumn and winter to the seas around the islands. Never 
seen among the islands (J. Clark and F. R. Rodd, f.c., 1906, 
p. 346). 

SuFFOLK.—One was obtained off Lowestoft in November, 
1898 (T. Southwell, Knowledge, 1899, p. 41). 

LINCOLNSHIRE.—About November 27th, 1902, a male was 
shot near the mouth of the River Welland (F. L. Blathwayt, 
Zool., 1903, p. 30). 

YORKSHIRE.—Autumn, 1904, a female at Scarborough. 
A number of examples obtained prior to 1899 are also detailed 
(T. H. Nelson, B. of Yorks., p. 754). 

ScorLanp.—On June 27th, 1894, between the Butt of Lewis 
and North Rona forty to sixty pairs were seen, “ nearly each 
pair sitting [on the water] lovingly together.”” On June 24th, 
1895, between Barra Head and St. Kilda over fifty pairs were 
seen sitting on the sea in pairs. A specimen was killed by a 
fisherman on August 7th, 1897, and two others in the fourth 
week of July, 1899, near St. Kilda (Alfred Newton, Ann. 
S.N.H., 1900, pp. 142-147). One was obtained from a small 
flock in the Summer Islands, Loch Broom,on October 31st, 
1897 (J. T. Henderson, f.c., 1906, p. 114). A few were 
seen off the Flannans on September 21st, 1904 (W. E. Clarke, 
t.c., 1905, p. 86). 

TRELAND.—In September, 1900, when cruising off the coasts 
of Kerry, Cork, and Waterford, Mr. H. Becher found this 
species surprisingly numerous ; on several days he saw eight 
or ten (R. J. Ussher, J. Nat., 1901, pp. 42-43). On September 
9th, 1901, the same observer sailed into a flock of two to three 
hundred of these birds between Cape Clear and Mizen Head 
and shot four. On September 13th he again saw large numbers, 
both off Valentia and between the Blaskets and Skelligs (id., 
t.c., 1905, p. 48). In 1906 Mr. G. P. Farran saw many in 
August off co. Kerry, and on November Ist off co. Cork ; and 
several on November 6th off co. Kerry (id., t.c., 1907, pp. 163 
and 184). In 1907 the same observer saw off the same coast 
many in August, a few in September, several in November, 
and in 1908 two in August and many in November (id., t.¢., 
1909, p. 80). 


Moult and Habits.—In the specimens recorded above under 
Scotland, as taken in July and August, Professor Newton 
found that the primaries were all new and only partially grown, 
and he concludes that the birds were practically incapable of 
flight (loc. cit.). The birds observed in June, 1894, were 
subsequently seen by Mr. H. L. Popham, who reports that 
“there were no young birds amongst them, but the old birds 
could scarcely fly, having apparently moulted out their 
primaries ”’ (cf. Trans. Roy. Irish Acad., XX XI., Pt. III., p. 72). 
Howard Saunders, in replying to a question of Newton’s as 
to the statement in the “‘ Manual” that this bird strikes the 
water with great violence on alighting, gives as his authority 
Captain J. W. Collins, who had had remarkable opportunities 
for observing this species on the American fishing banks. 
The habit had also been observed by Mr. R. Warren (cf. 
Zool., 1894, p. 22). Mr. Saunders further remarks that Captain 
Collins stated that the primaries and other flight-feathers 
of this species were shed and renewed somewhat abruptly 
from the end of June to the latter part of July, and that 
Baron d’Hamonville had drawn attention to the rapid moult 
of the flight-feathers in the Manx Shearwater (Howard 
Saunders, t.c., 1901, pp. 15-18). 

SOOTY SHEARWATER Puffinus griseus (J. F. Gm.). 
S. page 739. 

CoRNWALL.—One was shot near Looe on August 21st, 1899 
(J. Clark, Zool., 1907, p. 287). 

YORKSHIRE.—*‘ Now known to be a fairly regular visitant 
to the Yorkshire coast in autumn and winter” (T. H. Nelson, 
B. of Yorks., p. 756). Records since 1899 :—A male and 
female October 2nd, 1901, one October Ist, one October 4th, 
1904, all off Scarborough (W. J. Clarke, Zool., 1901, p. 477, 
1905, p. 74). Others reported in 1904 off Flamborough and 
Bridlington (T. H. Nelson, t.c., p. 758). Mr. Clarke also in- 
forms us that he obtained another example also off the coast 
of Scarborough on October 6th, 1908. 

KENT AND SUSSEX, cf. supra, p. 243.—Three recent occur- 

ScoTLAND.—A female was captured in Stromness Harbour 
on October 16th, 1902. Of extreme rareness in Scottish seas, 
this bird is new to the fauna of the Orkneys (W. E. Clarke, 
Ann. S.N.H., 1903, p. 25). In the mouth of the Firth of 
Forth Mr. William Evans is disposed to consider it “a fairly 
regular, though usually far from common, autumn visitant.”’ 
It appears that only two specimens have been preserved, but 


Mr. Evans bases his opinion on his own personal observations 
and those of fishermen who know the bird well, and have 
frequently seen it, though usually in small numbers. In 
1902 it appears to have been specially numerous, about a 
dozen being seen at one time (W. Evans, f.c., 1903, pp. 26-28). 

IRELAND.—A good many were seen during September, 1900, 
by Mr. H. Becher when cruising off the coasts of Kerry, Cork, 
and Waterford (R. J. Ussher, J. Nat., 1901, pp. 42-43). Great 
numbers were seen by the same observer in September, 1901, 
and four were shot. ‘‘ The observations of Mr. Becher in 
1892, 1899, 1900 and 1901, go to show that both [Great and 
Sooty] these oceanic species may be met with in August and 
September off the south-west extremity of Ireland, and some- 
times in considerable numbers.’”’ One was shot off Achill 
Island on May 22nd, 1901 (2d., t.c., 1905, p. 43). 

MANX SHEARWATER Puffinus anglorum (Temm.). 
S. page 741. 

Scitty Istanps.—Breeds on Annett in “ prodigious 
numbers ” (J. Clark and F. R. Rodd, Zool., 1906, p. 346). 

NortH Wa.eEs.—Bardsey Island.—Mr. O. V. Aplin in 1901 
found a considerable breeding colony on the north-east end 
of the island (f.c., 1902, p. 16), and they undoubtedly breed 
on the mainland of West Carnarvonshire (idem, t.c., 1900, 
p- 505). 

IRELAND.—On June 18th, 1904,when crossing from Liverpool 
to Belfast, Mr. R. Lloyd Patterson saw a large assemblage 
of between 150 and 200 in the early morning a few miles off 
the Skullmartin Lightship, near the coast of co. Down (Irish 
Nat., 1904, p. 171). 

The September migrations of this species are deserving of 
closer study than they appear to have received. There are a 
number of scattered records referring to these migrations but 
they are not sufficiently continuous to allow of any conclusion 
being drawn from them. 

LEVANTINE SHEARWATER Puffinus yelkouanus (Acerbi). 
S. page 741. 

The occurrences of this species have already been dealt with 
(antea, pp. 138, 206-208, 313). Mr. T. H. Nelson points out 
that in the ‘‘ Birds of Yorkshire’ it is recorded that three 
examples were obtained in 1904 (only two were mentioned on 
p. 207), but no details are given. 

MDDIFIONS-~ SINCE “1899: 373 

LITTLE DUSKY SHEARWATER Puffinus assimilis Gould. 
S. page 743. 

Puffinus obscurus bailloni, Bp., Rothschild and Hartert, 
Nov. Zool., VI. (1899), p. 196. 

Puffinus baillont, Bp., Godman, Monograph Petrels, pp. 

Messrs. Rothschild and Hartert separate the Australian 
form P. assimilis from the African form P. bailloni, and 
Dr. Godman, who coincides in this view, states that in the 
latter bird the quill-lining is greyish, or ashy-white, and not 
of such a pure white as in P. assimilis, while the lateral feathers 
of the under tail-coverts are more or less black along their 
outer webs and not entirely white as in P. assimilis. Dr. 
Godman considers that the British examples are referable to 
the Madeiran form. 

The third British example was a female picked up exhausted 
on the beach near Bexhill during the severe gale from the 
W.S.W. on December 28th, 1900. The bird was shown to 
belong to the form P. obscurus bailloni (W. R. Butterfield, 
Bull B:0:C., Xl», p. 45). 

The fourth example—a male—was caught alive near Lydd, 
Kent, after the disastrous south-westerly gale of November 
26th—-27th, 1905 (N. F. Ticehurst, t.c., XVI., p. 38). 

BULWER’S PETREL Bulweria bulweri (Jard. and Selby). 
S. page 749. 

The second British example was picked up dead near Beachy 
Head, Sussex, on February 3rd, 1903, after a succession of 
strong south-westerly gales (N. F. Ticehurst, Bull. B.O.C., 
XW po). 

The third—a female—was found dead on the shore near 
St. Leonard’s-on-Sea, Sussex, on February 4th, 1904, also 
after prolonged south-westerly gales (W. R. Butterfield, t.c., 
XV: p: 49). 

The fourth, vide antea, p. 282. 

FULMAR Fulmarus glacialis (L.). S. page 751. 

Breeding Stations. 

FLannAN Is_es.—Reported as breeding (J. A. Harvie- 
Brown, Ann. S.N.H., 1903, p. 19). A few pairs have bred 
on the outer islands for several years, and in 1904 two couples 
had nests on Eilean Mor (W. E. Clarke, #.c., 1905, p. 86). 


Barra.—Birds were seen in 1899, and in 1902 eggs were 
actually seen, while in 1906 there were from eight to twelve 
pairs breeding (N. B. Kinnear, f.c., 1907, p. 85). 

SUTHERLANDSHIRE.—In 1897 Fulmars were seen on June 
19th and 30th by Mr. Eagle Clarke about a mile to the east of 
Cape Wrath, and again at the same place on July 10th, 1900, 
by Mr. Howard Saunders, and they both considered that the 
birds were then nesting there (Ann. S.N.H., 1897, p. 254, 
1901, p. 50). A colony was established during 1901 (or 
possibly a year sooner 7), 1902, and 1903 on Handa (ef. 
J. A. Harvie-Brown, Fauna N.W. Highlands and Skye, 
pp. 355-361, where a very full account of the extension of 
this bird’s range in Scotland and its status up till 1904 will 
be found). 

CaITHNESS.—First observed at Dunnet Head in 1900. 
Have gradually increased in numbers since. About thirty 
pairs there now (J. A. Harvie-Brown, Ann. S.N.H., 1907, 

SHETLANDS.—In 1903 there were eight or nine actually 
occupied nesting sites (J. A. Harvie-Brown, Fauna N.W. 
Highlands and Skye, p. 359). Fair Isle-—In 1902 it was 
present during the summer: in 1903 about a dozen pairs 
bred, since which it has thoroughly established itself (W. 
E. Clarke, t.c., 1906, p. 80). Whalsay and Yell.—Found 
breeding in 1906 (J. S. Tulloch, t.c., 1906, p. 240). Futful 
Head.—A pair or two first seen in 1900, now (1905) about 
thirty pairs nesting (N. B. Kinnear, t.c., 1905, p. 246). 

OrKNEyS.—A number building nests June 8th, 1901 (t.c., 
1902, p. 199). Since 1891 two localities in Orkney, one of 
which is Hoy Head, have been occupied (J. A. Harvie- 
Brown, Fauna N.W. Highlands and Skye). Thirty or forty 
nests in 1901 at Hoy Head; over fifty in 1902 (Ann. S.N.H., 
1904, p. 94). Several pairs were discovered during the summer 
of 1907 frequenting the cliffs between Stromness and the 
Bay of Skaill, in Orkney. This is believed to be the first 
record from this locality (J. Walpole-Bond, Country Side, 7, 
5 ai Gr LTR 

In connection with the very marked and steady increase of 
this bird as a breeding species in Scotland, it should be 
remarked that a great increase has taken place in its numbers 
in the St. Kilda group, and this may partly account for the 
establishing of new nesting colonies (cf. J. A. Harvie-Brown, 
Ann. 8.N.H., 1903, p. 19): . 

ITRELAND.—“‘ Frequently met with at all seasons on the 
Atlantic . . . . rarely comes to land” (R. J. Ussher, last 


of I. Birds, p. 54). In 1906 Mr. G. P. Farran saw a few off 
co. Cork on November Ist, off co. Kerry on November 6th 
(id., t.c., 1907, p. 163), while he also noticed them in May and 
August of the same year, and in 1907 in February (i.c., p. 184), 
May (a few), August (many), September (a few), November 
(many), and in 1908, in January and February (many), August 
(many), November (a few), (é.c., 1909, p. 80). 

x *, This instalment takes us to the end of the “‘ Manual,” 
and our task of collecting the more important additions to 
the second edition will be completed next month by an article 
detailing the omissions from, and corrections of, our 
‘“‘additions.”’ We shall be extremely obliged for notes of such 
omissions and corrections which may have been detected by our 
readers, and these should be sent in net later than April 12th. 

(To be continued.) 


GREY WacraiL (Motacilla melanope).—This species nests 
regularly in north and west Sussex, probably in the east of 
the county, where Dr. C. B. Ticehurst found a brood in 1906, 
and probably also in other parts of Sussex, though very 
locally, and in no great numbers. For three years in suc- 
cession, 1906-07-08, I have found the nest (two in 1908) in 
the two former areas. 

Hopsy (Falco subbuteo).—Twice certainly within the past 
few years has the Hobby bred in Sussex. At the time of 
writing “‘ Sussex Hobbies,” which was published in ‘‘ Country 
Side” on February Ist, 1908, detailing the finding of an eyrie 
on June 15th of the previous year, I was under the impression 
that this was actually the first record. So it is as far as the 
notifying of the fact goes, but careful inquiries have elicited 
the information that in 1906 a brood was taken off in a totally 
different part of the county to where I found my eyrie. In 
1907 (the year in which I found it) I also located a second 
pair, but both birds vanished entirely from the wood they 
were frequenting. Probably they were destroyed. In 1906 
a pair meant settling down in a Heron’s old nest, but before 
the eggs were laid the male was mercilessly shot. On June 
17th, 1908, I saw a single bird in a certain district in the north 
of the county. 

Common SHELD-Dvuck (Tadorna cornuta).—The Sheld-Duck 
nests in one spot in Sussex for certain, in the extreme south- 
west coast corner of the county. I visited the place on May 
6th, 1908, and saw one pair of birds. The young were seen in 
1906 and 1907 by Mr. Padwick—a capital observer. 

SHOVELER (Spatula clypeata)—On April 18th, 1908, I 
discovered the Shoveler’s nest in the north of Sussex. This 
is the first record for the county. The following is an extract 
from my diary for that day :—‘ As I left a withy bed at the 
tail of the big mill-pond a pair of Shovelers, easily recognised 
as such by the drake’s plumage. chanced to be flying towards 
me over the water. This was the first year I had ever seen 
them here. Making a circuit they both settled by the second 
withy bed, half-way up the reach, where, by the aid of glasses 
and a careful stalk, I could study them to perfection.* 

* A full description of the birds, both in flight and at rest, here 
follows but has been omitted for want of space. — Eps. 

NOTES. 377 

‘“ Knlisting the services of the keeper I proceeded to hunt 
for the nest, which I was confident was somewhere near. 
The area of this mill-pond is a wide one, and there is much 
possible ground encircling it. But bearing in mind my 
experiences of the Shoveler in the north Kent marshes, where 
I had studied it very closely, I at once looked upon a stretch 
of rough grass adjoining the water and lying between the two 
withy beds as the most likely place for success. Taking the 
piece in beats the keeper and myself worked the place care- 
fully. Suddenly the keeper stopped and held up his hand. 
I knew he had something ; and he had—the Shoveler’s nest. 
It was about thirty paces from the margin of the pond, and 
placed between three tufts of ordinary grass, and then only 
held two eggs partially covered with bits of grass. As it 
happens so often at this stage of laying, there was not a shred 
of down, though of course the size and colour of the eggs, as 
well as the size of the nest, betokened the Shoveler.”’ Five 
days later, however, there was down in the nest, and this with 
the feathers amongst it set the matter beyond dispute. 
Thirteen eggs were ultimately laid, but unfortunately they 
were deserted owing to the heavy snowstorm at the end of 

Ferrucinous Duck (Fuligula nyroca).—For nearly the 
whole afternoon of March 20th, 1908, I watched three 
Ferruginous Ducks on a certain mill-pond in the north of 
Sussex. Luck is with me over this species, because in 1903, 
on April 19th, Mr. Gwynne-Vaughan and myself identified 
three on the Wye at Builth Wells, Breconshire, at really close 



GREY PHALAROPE (Phalaropus fulicarius).—I shot a bird 
of this species that was swimming about a duck-pond within 
fifty yards of a private house in the neighbourhood of 
Haverfordwest on December 6th, 1908. The pond is about 
one and a half miles from the sea, and there are no sand or 
mud-flats within about ten miles. This is quite an uncommon 
bird in this county, and I[ only know of two stuffed specimens. 

Common Birrern (Botaurus stellaris).—Mr. Jeffery, taxider- 
mist, of Haverfordwest, informs me that he had one to stuff 
this winter, shot near St. David’s. 

On January 23rd I was one of a party of seven guns who 
had a splendid view of a Bittern standing quite motionless, 
with head and beak at an angle of about 45°, in some tall 


yellow rushes on the lake at Stackpole Court, a residence of 
Earl Cawdor. The head-keeper there informed me that 
one or two appear regularly every winter. > 
Nutuatcu (Sitta cesia).—This bird is reputed to be ex- 
ceedingly rare in this county, but has either been overlooked 
or has lately become commoner. At the end of November 
I saw a bird of this species in the grounds of Picton Castle, 
and on March 7th I saw one in the grounds of Hean Castle, 
Saundersfoot. At both of these places there are a good 
number of old and large trees, the exception in this exposed 
and windswept county. 
W. MairLtanp CONGREVE. 


THe Wild Birds and Eggs Protection Committee of the 
Yorkshire Naturalists’ Union are this season placing a special 
watcher at Hornsea Mere to protect the rarer birds nesting 
there. They have for several years employed a watcher on - 
Spurn Point during the nesting season, with good effect, as 
was shown in Mr. Oxley Grabham’s article in our last number. 


As some of our readers may be aware Dr. Norman F. 
Ticehurst has for many years been studying the birds of Kent 
with a view to writing a history of the avifauna of the county. 
Dr. Ticehurst informs us that his manuscript is now complete, 
and that he intends to publish the work forthwith. The book 
is to be offered to subscribers, and the edition is to be limited. 
For many reasons Kent is an extremely important county 
ornithologically, and an adequate history of the Kent avifauna 
has long been needed. We have every confidence that Dr. 
Ticehurst’s work will be one of exceptional merit, and will 
take an honourable place in the splendid roll of the local 
avifaunas of our islands.—EDs. 


On February Ist, 1909, Mr. G. Bristow, taxidermist, of St. 
Leonard’s-on-Sea, brought to me in the flesh a male specimen 
of the Black-throated Thrush (Z'urdus atrigularis Temm.), 
which had been shot by a man named Fuller on the previous 
Saturday (January 30th) at Newenden,in Kent. The bird was 
killed on the Kentish side of the River Rother, which separates 

NOTES. _ 379 

the two counties of Kent and Sussex. This, so far as we know, 
is the third example of this Siberian Thrush which has been 
obtained in Great Britain. 

The first was killed near Lewes, in Sussex, on December 
23rd, 1869, and was bought by the late Mr. T. J. Monk from 
the man, a bricklayer, who had just shot it, and was at the 
time Mr. Monk met him, carrying the bird in his hand. I 
have often had the story from Mr. Monk’s own lips. After 

Male Black-throated Thrush shot at Newenden, Kent, on 
January 30th, 1909. 

Mr. Monk’s death, the rarest of the birds in his collection 
were, through Mr. A. F. Griffith, obtained for the Booth 
Museum at Brighton, and amongst them was this specimen 
of 7’. atrigularis. 

For the second recorded specimen obtained in Great Britain, 
Mr. J. A. Harvie-Brown kindly draws my attention to the one 
now in the Perth Museum, which was shot in February, 1879, 
on the banks of the Tay, and originally recorded by Col. 


Drummond-Hay (cf. Trans. Perth Soc. Nat. Sciences, Vol. L., 
pp. 185-138 ; see also bis, 1889, p. 579). 

Mr. H. E. Dresser in his “ Manual of Palearctic Birds ” 
gives the habitat of this species as Asia, north to the Obi 
and northern Yenesej, south to the Altai and Turkestan, 
east to Lake Baikal; in winter migrating south to Assam, 
northern India, Baluchistan, and Afghanistan ; has occurred 
in Europe as a rare straggler in the Caucasus, Hungary, 
Austria, Germany, Denmark, Belgium, and France and Great 
Britain. Mr. Dresser also informs us that “it has been found 
breeding in the Altai Range, and at Imbatskaya, on the 
Yenesei River,” and that it lays four to six eggs, which vary 
considerably, some resembling the ordinary type of the 
Blackbird, whereas others more resemble those of the Mistle- 
Thrush, but have the ground-colour of a deeper blue. 



WHILE walking along a road on June 5th, 1908, I saw a Wood- 
Warbler (Phylloscopus sibilatrix) with a mouthful of green 
grass. Being curious to know what it would do with it, I 
watched a few seconds. While looking, another Wood- 
Warbler came up with a white insect in its beak and, strange 
to say, entered a rabbit-hole on a perpendicular bank, not 
five yards from me, and in full view. It remained in the hole 
out of sight for several seconds, and then came out without the 
insect. I went nearer to see into the rabbit-hole, when both 
birds flew within a foot of my head, fluttering and tumbling 
about, and uttering the usual alarm note. On looking into 
the hole I could see nothing, so put in my hand, and out 
flew six little Wood-Warblers and joined their parents. The 
nest was exactly twelve inches down the hole, and was quite 
invisible from its mouth. The nest was not domed as usual. 
It may be interesting to note also that this particular bird was 
first heard by me near the spot where I subsequently found 
the nest, on May 6th, and I think it arrived on that day. The 
young flew out of the nest on June 8th: this seems quick 
work. Another peculiarity about this pair of birds was that 
the cock omitted the preliminary “chit, chit,’ and uttered 
only the second part of the ordinary shivering song—the trill, 
which was very loud and very prolonged, in some cases lasting 
fifteen seconds. 

Subsequent observation revealed the fact that the bird 
with the mouthful of grass referred to above was building a 


NOTES. 381 

second nest, while the other bird of the pair was feeding six 
young in the first nest. The second nest was also in the hole, 
not so far in as the first (only about six inches), but quite 
invisible when one looked on to the face of the bank. This 
nest was also not domed. 

W. 8S. MEDLIcorTT. 

[Mr. Medlicott very kindly sent us the nest in question, and 
we have submitted it and the note to the Rev. F. C. R. 
Jourdain, who mentions the following abnormal sites :— 

Nest under shelter of a root of a tree (cf. Zool., 1896, p. 375). 

Nest in a diagonal cleft in the perpendicular face of a big 
square boulder found in North Wales, May 21st, 1904 (O. V. 
Aplin, in litt. to F. C. R. J.). 

Mr. Jourdain adds :—*‘ The date (June 5th) is a very early 
one for young to be able to leave the nest. The eggs are 
usually laid about May 16th to 26th, often not till the end 
of May. This record seems to imply that the birds would 
have reared a second brood. Of this I have no previous 
evidence, and should consider it unlikely, as the Wood- Warbler 
is a late breeder.”—EDs. | 


I was surprised to hear that a pair of Chaffinches (Fringilla 
celebs) had nested and reared a brood during the past winter 
at Churchstoke, Montgomeryshire. Being sceptical I in- 
quired into the matter. I found the report quite correct ; the 
nest—undoubtedly a Chaffinch’s—being now in my possession. 
It was in a sycamore, twelve feet above the ground, and is 
made mainly of wool, with a few bits of lichen outside. The 
Chaffinches built during the mild weather, in December, 
and both parents were seen repeatedly at or about the nest, 
and were observed feeding the young on February 20th. 
Mr. G. Mountford, the master, and one of the boys in Church- 
stoke School, kindly furnished me with the above details. 

H. E. Forrest. 


An Alpine Swift (Cypselus melba) was shot on November 20th, 
1908, on the land of Colonel Mirehouse on the east side of 
Angle Bay, Pembrokeshire. The gamekeeper said that he 
had seen a pair of them in the neighbourhood for some time 



[In connection with the above record we have received 
further interesting particulars from Lieut. W. Maitland 
Congreve, R.A., who writes as follows :—‘ The bird was shot 
by one of a number of guns (who nearly all fired at the bird, 
thinking it was a Hawk), the guests of Colonel Mirehouse. 
The bird was sent to Mr. W. E. de Winton, of Orielton, who 
at once pronounced it to be an Alpine Swift. It is now 
stuffed and in the possession of Colonel Mirehouse, and I saw 
it some weeks ago. The bird is particularly remarkable 
for the enormous span of the wings. The back is of a dull 
brown colour; throat white, then a brown band and belly 
white. It is not in the least like an ordinary Swift, owing 
to the white, its size, and the span of its wings.’”’—Eps. | 


On January 14th, 1908, a friend who occasionally shoots 
birds for me brought me in a little Woodpecker that he had 
shot that day at Frampton Cotterel, near Bristol. It was 
climbing up the trunk of an old apple tree some five feet from 
the ground when shot. I supposed it to be simply a Lesser 
Spotted Wcodpecker, and so labelled it, and it was only after 
sending the skin to Mr. Marsden, of Tunbridge Wells, last 
month, that the bird was discovered to be a specimen of the 
North American Downy Woodpecker (D. pubescens). 


[In connection with this record we have received the follow- 
ing letter from Mr. H. W. Marsden :—‘** Amongst some Wood- 
peckers I received from Mr. Smallcombe there were a male 
and female, supposed to be Dendrocopus minor. The day I 
got them I was very busy, and sent on the two skins to the 
Hon. N. C. Rothschild. He handed them, without examina- 
tion, to Messrs. Rowland Ward, to be remade, and it was by 
them the bird was identified as Dendrocopus pubescens. 
Mr. Smallcombe is quite a young ornithologist, and had 
probably never seen a foreign skin of D. pubescens.” 

Both Mr. Marsden and Messrs. Rowland Ward have satistied 
us that this skin was undoubtedly not of American origin 
(we had suggested that the label might have been inadvertently 
changed), and that the bird was in fact shot in Gloucester- 
shire. The record is an interesting one, but we cannot believe 
that this North American Woodpecker crossed the Atlantic 
unaided, and we think that the bird must have escaped from 

NOTES. 385 

We could distinctly notice a White-tailed or Sea-Eagle 
(Halactus albicilla) soaring over this park (Weald Hall, 
Brentwood) at midday on Saturday, February 6th. It was 
high up and being mobbed by a smaller bird, which I could 
not distinguish. I could see the Kagle quite clearly through 
field-glasses. It kept wheeling quietly round for nearly half- 
an-hour, and then disappeared. 



AN Osprey (Pandion haliactus) appeared in this park (Weald 
Hall, Brentwood) from October 11th till the 24th, 1903. 
When it first came it was very tame, coming and taking some 
golden carp out of a pond in the garden, where some gardeners 
were at work. Afterwards it generally took up a position 
on the dead bough of a tree on an island in the lake, where it 
was generally mobbed by rooks, for whom, however, it seemed 
to have a supreme contempt. There is absolutely no doubt 
about its identity. It was of course protected, and notice 
was given about so that it should not be shot. 

An Osprey, presumably the same bird with more mature 
plumage, came again the following year, staying about a 



On April 29th, 1907, I found a nest of the Pochard (Puligula 
ferina) on the marshes in the north of Kent, in a’ district which 
need not be precisely specified. This is the first authenticated 
nest found in the county, and the only other that I am aware 
of was discovered a year afterwards by Major R. Sparrow 
in the south-west of Kent (cf. antea, p. 96). For several days 
before the actual discovery of the nest [had seen and watched 
closely two pairs of Pochards. One afternoon as a small 
tongue of rough ground infringing on one of the “ fleets ” 
(as all dykes are termed in Kent) was being worked for a 
Shoveler’s nest, a duck Pochard clattered cumbrously from 
a thick screen of reeds. The fact that she was alone 
suggested the possibility of a nest; and next morning on 
wading into the reed-bed, a duck Pochard again rose, not more 
than ten paces from the bank, from a swampy ridge of soil 
plastered with aquatic plants partitioning the “ fleet.” On 


this natural groyne was the nest, which, although very 
exposed, was not visible from the “ mainland,’ but I 
marvelled greatly that it had escaped the prying eyes of the 
Crows. Facing the reeds growing in the deep backwater 
opposite, it was secured under the lea of a large spread-eagled 
tuft of extremely coarse sword-like grass, and was built up 
from the ooze beneath to a height of five inches. It was a 
moist affair of freshly-plucked green grass, flat shreds of 
dried grass, fragments of reed, sedge and water-weeds, finished 
off with a few wisps of green grass. To some extent it 
resembled a Coot’s nest, though it was not so utterly exposed 
as most nests of that species. There was a well-trodden sloping 
platform, or “slide,” of vegetation about a foot long and 
seven inches wide leading up to the nest from the water. It 
was then, as above cited, only April 29th, far too early for 
a full clutch of Pochard’s eggs, and there were but two in the 
nest. These were uncovered and cold, for, of course, their 
owner had merely been standing by them. But their shape, 
size, and coloration, not to mention the presence of the bird, 
the disposition of the nest, and a few tufts of down, settled 
their identity beyond quibble. 



In a note in our last issue (p. 344) on this subject we 
made Mr. Robinson say that it was curious that Razor-shells 
were never found in birds killed in the early morning. 
Mr. Robinson points out that he wrote that these shells ‘‘ may 
often be found in Eiders shot at any time except early 
morning.” By this, he now tells us, he merely meant that the 
shells were not present before the birds had breakfasted, and 
not, as we inferred, that the birds do not feed on these 
shell-fish in the early morning.—Ebs. 


On February 27th, 1909, I saw a female Goosander (Mergus 
merganser) amongst the ducks on one of our ponds at Woburn. 
The bird has often been recorded in Bedfordshire, but it is 
perhaps sufficiently rare to be worthy of mention. 



Ir would be natural to suppose that species which are 
closely allied and which frequent the same ground would often 
interbreed ; but such is not the case. It is well known that 

qsnsny ‘seTeA\ YON ‘“epeg azeou yoys ‘pruqAH{ esnory poy pue Yyowlg olvewuoey omyeuruy 

<¢. . ¢ 



Black Grouse and Capercaillie frequently interbreed, and 
there are four or more known instances of hybrids between 
such diverse species as the Pheasant and the Capercaillie, but 
crosses between Black Grouse and Red Grouse, or Red Grouse 
and Ptarmigan, are extremely rare. Mr. J. A. Jones spoke 
to me one day concerning some Grouse which he and his 
son had killed at Llanerch bog, near Bala, North Wales, in 
August, 1908. On examination they proved to be undoubted 
hybrids between Black and Red Grouse. All the seven 
young birds in the covey were killed, but only two 
were preserved; these exhibit very clearly the characteristics 
of both parents. The back, wings, and _ scapulars are 
similar to those of the immature Black Grouse, whilst 
the new plumage, coming in on the breast and flanks, 
is like that of the *‘ White’ form of the Red Grouse, being 
deep chestnut and black widely tipped with white. ‘The 
feet, legs, and forked tail are similar to those of the larger 
parent. Neither of the parent birds was seen. It seems a 
great pity that the whole covey was destroyed, for had any 
reached maturity they would have been very beautiful and 
interesting birds, quite dissimilar to the other specimens of 
this hybrid that I have seen. 

Mr. H. E. Forrest, in ‘‘ The Vertebrate Fauna of North 
Wales,” states (p. 107) that he has seen what appears to be a 
hybrid between the Black and the Red Grouse in the posses- 
sion of Mr. Foster of Bettws-y-Coed; the specimen was shot 
at Yspythy Moor on the 20th of November, 1897. Mr. Foster 
also procured a similar specimen on the 9th of December, 

By the kindness of Mr. J. A. Jones I was enabled to exhibit 
the two specimens referred to above—a male and female—at 
the meeting of the British Ornithologists’ Club, held on 
January 20th last. . 

J. G. Mitats. 

AN immature male of the hybrid between the Red Grouse and 
Black Grouse was killed on October 6th, 1908, by Mr. F. W. 
Stobart, in Glen Troot, Kirkcudbrightshire, where Black Grouse 
are extremely plentiful. It was shot during a drive when 
flying in company with four Red Grouse. The bird is exactly 
of the same type as the two adult males already in the 
British Museum (one of these was one of two adult males killed 
at Millden, Forfarshire, on October Ist, 1900, by Mr. J. L. 
Cadwalader, while the other, presented by Lord Tweedmouth, 
bears no particulars regarding its capture), but it still retains 

NOTES. 387 

a considerable amount of the first plumage, particularly on 
the sides of the head and neck, where the feathers are mostly 
light reddish-buff barred with black. The bill is large and 
rather coarse, and the basal portions of the toes are feathered 
as in the Red Grouse, while the terminal portions are naked 
and pectinate on the sides as in the Black Grouse. Mr. Stobart 
has kindly presented the specimen to the British Museum, and 
I had the pleasure of exhibiting it at the February meeting of 
the British Ornithologists’ Club. I havea further communica- 
tion from Mr. Stobart saying that his keeper in Kirkcud- 
bright has examined at close range a second example of this 
hybrid on the same ground with some Red Grouse. 

Another male example of this rare hybrid has also been 
offered to the British Museum by Mr. G. Ashley Dodd, but 
has not yet been received. 



In the March number of Bririsu Brrps there is a reference 
to the White-billed Northern Diver. For the last three years 
I have had opportunities of watching large numbers of Great 
Northern Divers (Colymbus glacialis) in the Outer Hebrides 
in the end of October and beginning of November. At that 
time none of the birds had attained their full winter plumage, 
and the neck bands were in every case easily detected, but in 
nearly the whole of them the lower mandible was ivory- 
coloured, and the upper mandible partially so. The bill 
of C. adamsi is so remarkably “ up-turned”’ that it would 
be a far safer guide in winter than the colour. 


[The plumages of the Great Northern Diver are very little 
known, but it would seem from the Duchess of Bedford’s 
observations that it is not only the young that have light- 
coloured bills in autumn. Mr. Ogilvie-Grant has noted 
(Vol. I., p. 295) that in the young C. adamsi the up-curved 
character of the lower mandible is much less marked, and 
“mistakes may easily be made,” but by the end of October 
it is possible that birds of the year would have attained this 
characteristic. We fancy that the purer white colour of the 
bill of C. adamsi would make it distinguishable even at a 
distance from C. glacialis.—EDs. | 



As Mitchell, in his “ Birds of Lancashire,’ only mentions the 
Fulmar Petrel (Fulmarus glacialis) as having occurred four 
times in Lancashire, perhaps the occurrence of a fifth example 
at Galgate, near Lancaster, on April 3rd, 1904, may be of 
interest, especially as it was picked up alive in a field quite 
three miles from the sea. 

H. W. Rosinson. 

wee ae 

LitTtLE Rincep PLover In Nort Uist.—Mr. J. E. 
Harting reports in the ‘“ Field” (20, x1., 09, p. 329), that he 
has received word from Mr. H. E. Beveridge, of Kelso, of a 
small Plover which he shot in North Uist, in October, 1908. 
By means of a sketch, drawn to the natural size, and a 
description of the bird, Mr. Harting comes to the conclusion 
that it was undoubtedly a specimen of Agia’itis curonica. 
So far as we know an authenticated example of the Little 
Ringed Plover has not been obtained in this country for very 
many years, and the bird has never before been recorded 
for Scotland. 


Recurvirostra avoc 




Naturalists’ Camera, 

For Telephoto or Ordinary LENSES. ‘ 
Positive Lens. Works at sili 

) Lenses are used 
by the most 

skilled Bird . 

The following are 
specially recommended : 

THE STIGMATIC SERIES Il. F/6 (Convertible.) 

(A Rapid Long Focus Lens at a Moderate Price.) 

High or Moderate Power Telephoto Lenses (Original Make). 
We are Specialists in Cameras and A Lpparatus Jor Photo- Ornithologists. | 


Ghowronole: ab NAWMAN- BF, we NEASDEN. LONDON, N.W. | 

An extremely interesting collection of Birdskins from the high mountains 
of Formosa, including many rarities and. recently described species, in 
first-class condition. 

For List apply to— 


Naturalist and Importer of Zoological Collections, 1 

Price Lists of Birdskins, Eggs, Mammals, Reptiles, Batrachians, aicmuetice 
Cabinets, Apparatus, etc., post free on Application. 


Waturalists, | Sh 

And Manufacturers of CABINETS and APPARATUS for Entomology, Binds gs Uys 
and: Skins, and all Branches of Natural. History. uae 

. Speciality :~Objects for Nature Study, Drawing Classes, &c. 


All Books and Publications on Natural History supplied. Ne ne : 
36, STRAND, LONDON, W.C. (Five Doors from Charing Coss.) i 

Catslogue {102 pp.) post 


Pere BY i. EF) WITHERBY, -F.2Z:5,,.) MBO, 
Rooke: bY WW: P. PYCRAFT, A.LS;, M.5-0.U. 

ConTENTS OF NuMBER 12, Vor. II. May 1, 1909. 

Some Early British Ornithologists and their Works, by 
W. H. Mullens, m.a., tu.M., M.B.o.u. IX.—William 
Macgillivray (1796—1852) and William Yarrell ioe 

1853) . Page 389 
Notes on the Nesting of ihe Goadandee by N orman Gilroy: 
M.B.O.U. ie 400 

On the More Important Additions te our t icnoplades of 
British Birds since 1899, by H. F. Witherby and N. F. 
Ticehurst. Part XX.—(continued from page 375) a 406 

Notes :—Life of the late Professor Alfred Newton (A. F. R. 
Wollaston). The Birds of Fair Isle (Eds.). Eggs of 
the Cuckoo (C. W. Colthrup). Chaffinch Nesting in 
Winter (H. E. Forrest). Red Grouse and Black Grouse 
Hybrids (Hugh 8. Gladstone). Nesting Records of 
the Kittiwake in the Isle of Wight (Rev. J. E. Kelsall). 
Briinnich’s Guillemot in the Firth of Forth (Eds.). 
Slavonian Grebe and Black-Necked Grebe in Hertford- 
shire (Chas. Oldham). Short Notes Se ; 422 

Review :—The Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist Fy. 427 


W. H. MULLENS, m.a., Lu.m., M.B.0.U. 

WILLIAM YARRELL (1784—1853). 

AmoneG the many famous names which adorn the long 
roll of British ornithologists, that of William Macgillivray 
stands forth as facile princeps. His work was not only 
far superior to that of his predecessors and contemporaries, 
but it remains to this day with but few, if any, serious 
rivals, and will:probably continue to do so for many years 
to come. 

Macgillivray’s great book, “The History of British 



Birds,” which was completed in 1852, has nevertheless 
failed to receive the appreciation which it deserves, and 
although it is probably far more widely read to-day than 
it has been hitherto, it has taken upwards of sixty years 
for the student and compiler to recognise its transcendent 

The causes of this neglect are somewhat difficult to 
understand ; and probably they arose from a variety of 
circumstances. Macgillivray’s personal character was 
no doubt an obstacle to his success. One of his warmest 
admirers, the great American bibliographer and naturalist, 
Elliott Coues, describes him in these words :— 

‘““ Macgillivray appears to have been of an irritable, 

highly sensitized temperament, fired with enthusiasm 
and ambition, yet contending, for some time at least, with 
poverty; ill-health and a perhaps not well-founded, 
though not therefore the less acutely-felt, sense of neglect ; 
thus ceaselessly nerved to accomplish yet as continually 
haunted with the dread of failure. . . . . This 
author was undoubtedly unwise in his frankness; but 
diplomacy is a stranger to such characters. 
If he never hesitated to differ sharply with yee or 
to express his own views pointedly—if he scarcely dis- 
guised his contempt for triflers, blockheads, pedants, 
compilers and theorizers . . . . he was nevertheless 
a lover of Nature, an original thinker, a hard student, 
and finally an ornithologist of large practical experience, 
who wrote down what he knew or believed to be true 
with great regard for accuracy of statement and in a very 
agreeable manner.” 

To this must be added the curious coincidence that 
in the same year as the first volume of Macgillivray’s 
‘“ History of British Birds ’’ was published (that is in 
1837), another very famous work on the same subject, 
and bearing a precisely similar title, made its appearance. 
This was the well-known work of William: Yarrell, which, 
from the clearness of its descriptions, the skill of its illus- 
trations and the useful conciseness of its information, 

i — 


speedily became recognised as the standard authority on 
British ornithology. The success of Macgillivray’s master- 
piece was undoubtedly retarded by the simultaneous 
appearance of Yarrell’s work, and it was further hampered 
by the fact that while Yarrell completed his task in 1843, 
it was not until nine years later that Macgillivray’s was 
brought to a conclusion, twelve years having been allowed 
to elapse between the publication of the first three and 
the last two volumes. The matter of nationality had 
also perhaps some bearing on the question; the English 
public naturally preferring the work of a fellow country- 
man to that of a Scotsman, however able.* But all these 
circumstances, much as they tended to prevent the due 
appreciation of Macgillivray’s labours, were but trivial 
in comparison with the predominating cause of his com- 
parative failure. The failure of the “ History of British 
Birds ”’ lay in the intrinsic value of the book itself. 

To understand how this arose it is necessary to consider 
not only the scope of Macgillivray’s book itself, but also 
the state and condition of ornithology in this country at 
that time. The increasing study of ornithology had 
produced in that science, in common with many others, 
specialists; 7.e., students and writers who devoted them- 
selves to some particular department or branch of their 
favourite science. These had gradually formed them- 
selves into three distinct groups: the anatomists or 
morphologists, the chamber-naturalists, and the field- 
naturalists. The first named carried out their work 
in the dissecting room and the laboratory, the second 
devoted their attention to the study of the skins of birds 
in the museum, and of the labours of others in the ornitho- 
logical library ; the third gave their time to the observa- 
tion and study of living birds in their natural surroundings. 
The labours of the chamber-naturalists were chiefly 

* In much the same way—to compare small things to great—the 
undoubted merit of Fleming’s ‘‘ History of British Animals,’ 1828, had 
been injuriously affected by the greater popularity accorded to a 
similar undertaking by an Englishman, viz., Jenyns’ ‘“‘ Manual of British 
Vertebrate Animals,” which appeared in 1830. 


directed towards the manufacture of new genera and 
the subdivision of existing ones; to proclaiming the 
superiority of one system of nomenclature over another ; 
to the endless alteration and confusion of the classification 
of species, to the disparagement of each other’s labours 
and the laudation of their own. On one point and on one 
only were they agreed, much and bitterly as they differed 
on most other matters: they united in a common hatred 
and contempt for the field-naturalists. | 

In the opinion of the chamber-naturalists the existence 
of this third group of ornithologists was only justified 
by the fact that their observations and investigations 
provided fresh material for the use and advancement of 
the very men who decried their labours. It is true that 
most of the really important contributions to the literature 
of ornithology had come from the pen of the field- 
naturalists, but these works were not deemed “ scientific ”’ 
and the chamber-naturalist regarded them as but of 
small account. 

And now suddenly all this was changed, the pedants 
and the pundits were threatened with a new and uncon- 
sidered danger and driven by it to seek their common 
safety in united action. A Scotsman who had spent his 
youth in observing and collecting birds, both in the distant 
islands of the Hebrides and on the mainland of his native 
country, had in due course of time become professor of 
Civil and Natural History in a northern university, had 
devoted his acute and highly trained intellect to the study, 
not of a single branch but of the whole science of ornitho- 
logy, and had produced a book which not only recorded 
the most careful and accurate investigations in the field, 
but also proposed to create a new scientific classification 
of birds, founded on the consideration of their digestive 
organs, which, from the fact that his skill as an anatomist 
was unassailable and that the proposed scheme of classifi- 
cation had the further disadvantage of being original, 
constituted in the opinion of the chamber-naturalists 
a pressing and immediate peril. Presumption combined 




I p Mt i Wi 
NOR, mr 

17 Wilh i) 

WILLIAM MACGILLIVRAY, from the engraving in “A Vertebrate 
Fauna of the Outer Hebrides,’ by J. A. Harvie-Brown and 

T. E. Buckley, 1888. (By permission of Messrs. Harvie-Brown 
and David Douglas.) 

WILLIAM YARRELL, after the frontispiece by F. A. Heath, to 
the Third Edition of Yarrell’s ‘‘ History of British Fishes,” 1859. 


with merit must be crushed, and crushed it was in a speedy 
and most effective manner. The word went forth that 
Macgillivray’s work was “choked with anatomical 
details.””. The half-truth repelled the public, the ‘‘ History 
of British Birds ” was doomed to oblivion and the chamber- 
naturalists returned to their discussions in triumph. 
That they had incidentally broken the heart of the greatest 
ornithologist this country has ever possessed, that they 
had nearly prevented the completion of one of the greatest 
books on British birds, was to them of course, not a 
matter of the least importance. 

Fortunate indeed it is that at the present day all this 
is changed, and that the “ chamber-naturalist ’ is now 
as able in the field as in the museum. 

From this combination of adverse circumstances 
Macgillivray’s work has never completely recovered, 
and probably never will. Although the copyright has 
long expired and it now commands a price in the auction 
rooms which places it beyond the reach of many who 
would gladly possess it, yet the fact remains that in these 
days of constant re-issues and new editions of ornithological 
books, many of which are more or less worthless, Mac- 
gillivray’s great work has never been reprinted and brought 
up to date. 

No adequate account of the life and work of William 
Macgillivray has yet been published; some knowledge 
of his character and career can however be derived from 
a privately printed book, written by a namesake of the 
great ornithologist, and entitled “‘ A Memorial Tribute 
to William Macgillivray”’ (Edinburgh, 1901, 1 vol., 4to). 
The preface to Macgillivray’s ‘‘ Rapacious Birds of Great 
Britain ’” and that to the fourth volume of his “ British 
Birds ”’ may also be consulted to advantage. 

William Macgillivray was born in Old Aberdeen in 1796. 
He left Aberdeen when a child of three, and lived with his 
two uncles in the island of Harris—his father, who was 
an army surgeon, being absent with his regiment—till 
he was eleven years of age, when he returned to Aberdeen to 


complete his education. At the age of twelve Macgillivray 
entered King’s College, and one year later, in 1809, lost 
his father, who fell on the stricken field of Corufia. 
Macgillivray, as he himself informs us,* ‘Commenced the 
study of zoology in 1817 while qualifying for the medical 
profession.” . . . . “‘My only guides were Linnezus 
and Pennant,” but a fellow student, William Craigie, 
evinced an equal interest in Nature, and the two together 
undertook a series of “ pleasant and successful excursions 

in quest of plants and animals” . . . . “and most 
zealously strove to add to our common store of knowledge 
both in zoology and botany.” . . . . “ The fascina- 

tions of these pursuits were such that, after studying 
medicine for nearly five years, during part of which time 
I officiated as dissector to the lecturer on anatomy at 
Marischal College, I resolved to relinquish it and devote 
my attention exclusively to natural history.” In pur- 
suance of the project Macgillivray now commenced to 
wander over most parts of Scotland; he explored the 
“desolate isles of the west” and walked from Aberdeen 
to London for the purpose of visiting the British Museum. 
He afterwards went to Edinburgh and attended Professor 
Jameson’s natural history lectures. He then again 
betook himself to the Outer Hebrides, ‘where he hammered 
at the gneiss rocks, gathered gulls’ eggs and shot plovers 
and pigeons” till finding this dull he returned to the 
mainland and became assistant and secretary to Professor — 
Jameson, under whose supervision he took charge of the 
museum at Edinburgh University. Having held this 
post for several years he retired, and renewed his “‘ observa- 
tions in the fields,” supporting himself meanwhile by 
his labours with the pen. In 1830-1831 he was 
unanimously elected as Conservator of the museum of the 
Edinburgh College of Surgeons, and this position he held 
till 1841, but meanwhile he in no way relaxed his ornitho- 
logical labours, save, as he writes, for “‘ about a year when 
hope seemed almost to have deserted me.” 

* Preface to ‘‘ Rapacious Birds,” p. 2. 


In 1833, with a view to re-arranging the catalogue of 
his museum, he paid a series of visits to some of the more 
notable collections in this country, including the museums 
of Glasgow, Liverpool, Dublin, Bristol and London. 
In 1834 Macgillivray commenced to give lectures on 
natural history, and in 1835 he finished the new catalogue. 
In 1841 his connection with the museum came to an end, 
he having been appointed to the professorship of ‘ Civil 
and Natural History’ in Marischal College, Aberdeen. 
During the ten years he was at Edinburgh, Macgillivray 
in addition to his other work, published in 1836 * Descrip- 
tions of the Rapacious Birds of Great Britain”’ (1 vol., 
8vo), the first volume of the first edition of “A Manual 
of British Ornithology ” (2 vols., 8vo, London, 1840-1842 : 
the second edition appeared in 1846), and the first three 
volumes of his ‘‘ Great Work,” as he rightly termed it, 
‘“‘ A History of British Birds, Indigenous and Migratory.” 
Besides the above he contributed a “‘ History of British 
Quadrupeds ” to Jardine’s ‘“‘ Naturalist’s Library” (40 
vols., 1838-1843; 2nd edition, 1844-1855), and compiled the 
scientific part of Audubon’s “‘ Ornithological Biographies.”’ 
There is no need to deal at any length with Macgillivray’s 
“Great Work ”’ here, his object in writing it was “to lay 
before the public, descriptions of the birds of Great Britain, 
more extended and if possible more correct than any 
previously offered,” and this he most ably succeeded in 
doing, but the illustrations, the anatomical plates 
excepted, can hardly be called worthy of the text. Mac- 
gillivray occupied his chair at Marischal College for eleven 
- years, but in 1850-1851 he was attacked by a serious illness, 
the result it is said of a pedestrian excursion undertaken 
in the Upper Valley of the Dee, to study that locality for 
his last written and posthumously printed book, ‘‘ The 
Natural History of Deeside and Braemar ”’ (1 vol., 8vo, 
1855). In the autumn of 1851 he removed to the milder 
climate of Torquay, and while still at that place he in 
March, 1852, published the fourth volume of his “Great 
Work.” The fifth appeared in July after his return to 


Aberdeen, and on September the 8th of that same year 
he died at his residence in Crown Street in that city. 
In the pathetic “Conclusion” to the fifth volume he 
states, “I have finished one of the many difficult and 
laborious tasks which I had imposed on myself.” 
‘*Commenced in hope and carried on with zeal, though 
ended in sorrow and sickness, I can look upon my work 
without much regard to the opinions which contemporary 
writers may form of it, assured that what is useful in it 
will not be forgotten . . . . and knowing that it 
will powerfully influence the next generation of our 

If Macgillivray was not “ the most eminent ornithologist 
in Europe,” as he has been designated by his admirers, 
and perhaps that description better applies to Naumann, 
he certainly was by far the greatest ornithological genius 
that this island has produced, and as such we have every 
reason to honour his memory. 

William Yarrell, Macgillivray’s great contemporary, 
was born on the 3rd of June, 1784, in the parish of St. 
James’, London. His father carried on the trade of a 
newspaper agent in Duke Street, and to this business 
Yarrell succeeded in due course. He was educated at 
Ealing, and in his eighteenth year entered the banking- 
house of Herries, Farquhar & Co., as a clerk, but soon 
left to assist his father in business. Yarrell seems to 
have turned his attention to the study of ornithology 
while engaged on the fishing and shooting expeditions 
with which he varied the monotony of business. As 
he neared middle age his love for natural history increased, 
and he abandoned field sports, and henceforward devoted 
himself to the systematic study of zoology. In 1823 
he commenced to note the appearance of rare and interest- 
ing birds, and is said to have aided Bewick by sending him 
rare specimens. He became a fellow of the Linnean 
Society in 1825, and was one of the original members of 
the Zoological Society. In 1836 he completed a “ History 


of British Fishes,’ and in July, 1837, published the 
first part of his well-known “ History of British Birds.” 
This was completed in May, 1843, and the first supplement 
was printed in 1845. The “ History of British Birds,” 
which originally appeared in three volumes, proved a great 
success. Yarrell, besides being an accomplished ornitho- 
logist, knew exactly what the general public wanted in 
a popular text-book, and, moreover, possessed the skill 
of presenting his knowledge in a concise and agreeable 
manner. A second edition of the book appeared in 1845, 
and a third, incorporating the second supplement, in 
1856. In 1871 a fourth edition was commenced; this was 
finished in 1885, and consisted of four volumes, the 
original text being almost entirely rewritten, Professor 
Newton undertaking that of the first two volumes and 
Mr. Howard Saunders that of the remainder; the latter of 
these two—both, alas, recently deceased—further con- 
densed the whole into a single volume, illustrated with the 
same figures as the larger work, and entitled “An 
Illustrated Manual of British Birds” (1st edition, 1889 ; 
Ind, 1899). 

Yarrell was a man of unbounded energy, and in addition 
to his business labours was the author of many and various 
writings on natural history.* He was also a zealous 
supporter of several learned societies. After a long and 
busy life he was seized with a sudden illness while on a 
visit to Yarmouth, where he died on September Ist, 1853. 
He was buried at Bayford in Hertfordshire in a spot 
which had been selected by himself, and a medallion tablet 
at the west end of the south aisle in St. James’ Church 
records his memory in his native parish. 

* For a list of these, 81 in number, cf. ‘‘Memoir,” third edition, 
‘¢ British Fishes.”’ 

( 400 ) 


For the last eight years or so it has been my custom to 
spend a portion of the spring in a remote part of 
Sutherlandshire, and although each May I have observed 
a duck Goosander (Mergus merganser) with a brood of 
newly-hatched young ones on the large loch near which 
I stayed, it was not until the spring of 1908 that I actually 
came across the nesting site, or rather, sites, for the 
main object of these notes is to show that with the 
Goosander there is a slight inclination to sociability. 

My previous experience of the Goosander as a nesting 
species had been slight—confined, in fact, to the finding, 
or rather, to the assisted discovery of a nest on April 
21st, 1905, in a deep cavity on the steep, rocky, and 
sparsely-wooded bank of a river in Ross-shire (the sides 
of the ravine were in places almost inaccessible), and to 
the discovery, after a long and interesting watch, on 
April 25th of the same year, of a second nest on a wooded 
hillside in Sutherlandshire. 

In the first-mentioned case I saw little of the sitting 
bird, for she at once scuttled out of the cavity containing 
the nest, and flew rapidly down the gorge to the main » 
river. There were thirteen eggs anda profusion of down, 
and incubation had commenced, although at the time the 
ground was white with snow. I saw no sign of the drake 
anywhere, and I am credibly informed that as soon as 
the clutch is complete the male Goosanders leave the 
neighbourhood and repair probably to the sea. My 
subsequent observations tended to confirm this. 

My experience with the second pair was considerably 
more interesting. I was sitting in a sheltered spot on the 
wooded hillside above mentioned (which overlooks a loch 
of considerable size) watching a couple of Eagles hunting, 
when my attention was arrested by the movements of a 


pair of ducks, which suddenly rose from the loch and 
flew rapidly towards me. I was at first unable to determine 
accurately the species. But fortunately the sun was 
shining brightly ; still more fortunately the birds came 
quite close to me before they turned, so that the charac- 
teristic plumage of the male was easily discernible. After 
turning once they flew round at varying heights in wide 
ellipses, the duck leading, whilst both birds uttered a 
curiously muffled, but harsh, quacking noise. I noticed 
that the duck invariably dived down over a particular 
spot on the hillside, and it at once struck me that the nest 
was not far from this point, so that when they finally 
flew down to the loch again I started to explore the hill- 
side carefully in the immediate neighbourhood of the spot. 
mentioned. The ground was sparingly strewn with 
boulders of considerable size, most of them half buried 
in the soil, but at the base of the second one, which I 
examined, was a wide dry cavity containing a lot of 
withered grass which had evidently not been blown there 
by the wind. I could not possibly reach it or get at it 
from the front in any way, but found that by the removal 
of some small stones from behind the whole cavity could 
be comfortably examined, and in it was the Goosander’s 
nest, containing one fresh egg. The nest itself was com- 
posed of masses of white, withered grass, and at this time 
I saw only one or two down tufts. I visited the nest 
twice afterwards, but had no opportunity of seeing the 
duck sitting, as I had to come south before the clutch 
was completed. An egg appeared to be laid every 
other day, and I afterwards heard from a gillie, to whom 
I showed the nest, that this bird ultimately laid eight. 

I had no further experience of the Goosander until 
1908; for, although each spring up till then I carefully. 
searched a heavily wooded hillside hanging right over a 
Sutherland loch, I could never discover a nest, in spite of 
the fact that after perhaps a fortnight’s hunting I in- 
variably saw the duck Goosander with her young on the 


That year I arrived in Sutherlandshire on May 12th. 
The weather was beautifully fine and warm, but this was 
only of recent occurrence, as apparently the heavy snows 
of late April had but just melted away. On the evening 
of my arrival I had a short conversation with the keeper, 
in the course of which I asked him if he had seen anything 
of the Goosander. He at once replied that a few mornings 
previously as he was coming down the road which runs 
parallel with a small stream that flows from the hills 
through a deep gorge down into the loch, he had seen a 
Goosander flying rapidly up-stream, and that at a certain 
point it had appeared to dive into the bank. There 
was of course no doubt in my mind then that I was 
at last on the right track and that the explanation of 
my previous years’ fruitless search was at hand. 

The keeper had described the spot where he had seen 
the Goosander disappear so fully that I did not think it 
necessary to take him with me next morning, and I ac- 
cordingly started away at an early hour to explore the 
gorge, the banks of which are in places very steep and 
rocky—in others less precipitous, but thickly grown 
with heather, with here and there a mountain ash, or 
birch, or an aspen, now just bursting into leaf. Although 
I was perfectly familiar with the stream, having often 
tramped it from mouth to source in search of the 
Ring-Ousel, curiously enough it had never struck me before 
as an ideal place for the nest haunt of the Goosander, and 
I naturally was full of excitement at the prospect before 
me. On reaching the spot which I imagined the keeper 
to have described—a high and somewhat bare hummock, 
forming almost an island in the stream, with a solitary 
tree and thin growth of heather on the top, the whole 
overlooking a beautiful waterfall, I at once commenced 
searching the holes and rifts in the peat, some of which 
are fringed with heather. In about ten minutes I came 
across a deepish cavity with a well-worn track leading 
in to it, and two tell-tale down-tufts clinging to the 
heather at the entrance. I could by no means reach the 


nest, and as I was anxious to catch the sitting duck if 
possible I broke away a piece of the bank. As soon as I 
did so, however, the duck escaped by another hole which 
I had not previously noticed, and flew down towards the 
loch. Her plumage was very bright, and she appeared 
to be in perfect condition. The nest was perhaps four 
feet from the entrance—the cavity being dry and warm— 
and it contained ten eggs and a profusion of down mixed 
with good-sized bunches of heather, and a very few birch 
leaves, evidently taken there by the bird. The site had 

A Nesting Haunt of the Goosander. 

been used before as was amply demonstrated by the 
presence of old eggshells. The eggs were in an advanced 
state of incubation, and should have hatched out in a 
week or less. Both entrances to the nest were quite open 
and unprotected, and both were apparently used 

I told the keeper on my return that I had found the 
Goosander’s nest and the matter dropped. But on the 
21st I happened to be rambling along the same stream 
early in the morning looking at a Kestrel’s eyrie, when 


to my astonishment, on suddenly turning a corner, I 
saw a Goosander flying rapidly towards me. I concealed 
myself hurriedly, and the duck passed me at a distance of 
a few feet. She was quacking in the same harsh but 
curiously muffled way as I have before mentioned, but 
unfortunately she disappeared before I could gain a spot 
commanding a view of the entire gorge. This place was 
only about three hundred yards from the nest described 
above; but I could not think that the duck belonging 
to that one would be here alone after her eggs had been 
taken, so I determined to come out at four o’clock on the 
following morning and take up a suitable position to 
watch for her. A wait of five hours, however, was 
unavailing ; I saw no sign of the Goosander at all. My 
search of the banks, a very difficult matter at this point, 
seeing that they were heavily fringed with heather, and 
that the rocks were very sheer, proved equally fruitless. 
I got back almost exhausted, but arranged to go out with 
the keeper early next morning to clear up the mystery. 
The morning broke bright and clear, and we started 
off at 4.30. On reaching the point at which I had taken 
the Goosander’s nest a few days previously, the keeper 
passed it unconcernedly, so I at once knew there was a 
second nest close by. We crossed the stream almost 
exactly where I had seen my bird disappear, and the 
keeper then remarked, “‘ This is the spot.” We climbed 
up the bank with considerable difficulty, but after a short 
search came upon a large and very deep hole almost 
concealed by a heavy fringe of heather. There were 
half-a-dozen pieces of down scattered about, and im- 
mediately I raised the heather fringe I heard the 
Goosander hissing inside. The nest itself was about 
seven feet in, and I caught the sitting duck, which was in 
perfect plumage and condition, although the ten eggs 
were within a few days of hatching, and the quantity of 
down was considerable. The nesting hole was damp 
and filthy, and had evidently been used for years, so that 
I was surprised to find the duck so beautifully clean, the 


rose tints being particularly fine. She was very fat, but 
did not struggle much, and when I released her, flew off 
down the stream quacking quietly. 

I was, of course, greatly astonished to find two 
Goosanders nesting in such close proximity ; and the 
fact that they must have been for years inhabiting a 
stream with which I was perfectly familiar goes far to 
prove how easily the species may be overlooked. 

I saw no sign of the drakes during the whole of this, 
or any previous, visit to the district. 


Gg j , \ : 
A gquataro! 

( 406 ) 


Part XX. 
(Continued from page 375.) 

Corrigenda et Addenda. 

In concluding this series of articles we would express our 
great indebtedness to the Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain, who has 
given us generous and continual assistance; to Mr. R. J. 
Ussher, who has taken the greatest pains to make our record 
of Irish birds complete, and has added much new information; 
to Mr. H. E. Forrest, who has given us much help in Welsh 
and Shropshire records; to Mr. T. H. Nelson, who has most 
kindly assisted us in Yorkshire records; and to Messrs. W. 
Evans and J. A. Harvie-Brown, who have given us much 
advice in Scottish records. 

In making use of this series of articles on the additions to 
the second edition of Howard Saunders’ ‘‘ Manual,” the 
reader is warned that it is necessary to consult also the indices 
of the two volumes of the Magazine now complete, since 
many observations have been recorded while these articles 
have been in progress.* 

Wuite’s THrus# (Vol. I., p. 53).—Saunders describes it as 
‘“‘ probably ”’ breeding in Japan, and also describes Swinhoe’s 
egos. These are now known to have belonged to some other 
species. Many authenticated nests and eggs have now been 
taken in Japan (cf. Heatley Noble, Bull. B.O.C., X., p. 47, 
Collingwood Ingram, Ibis, 1908, pp. 132 and 386, Plate IV., 
figs. 2 and 3 (eggs)). 

Repstart (Vol. I., p. 54).—Scotland.—Quoting from the 
“Manual” we stated that this bird had not previously been 
recorded from the ‘‘ Hebrides.’’ Mr. D. Macdonald, of Tober- 
mory, kindly writes that this should read Outer Hebrides, as 
the Redstart is common in Mull. Moreover, Mr. Harvie- 
Brown has noted (Ann. S.N.H., 1902, p. 140) that it was met 
with once by Finlayson, of Mingulay, on August 6th, 1889, 

* Some corrections of Irish records not mentioned in this article are 
made on pp. 248 and 276 of this volume. 


and another was recorded at Barra Head on May 15th, 1894. 
Saunders says: ‘“‘In Scotland it has of late years spread 
northwards ; now breeding freely in the Moray basin, and 
only less so in Sutherland, Caithness and West Ross.” But, 
as far back as 1839 Jardine (Brit. Birds, Vol. II., p. 119) 
wrote, ‘‘ It extends, . . . , to the northern parts of Scotland.” 
In the sixties, Booth noted their abundance in the Highlands : 
in the Catalogue of the Cases in his Museum, at Brighton 
(p. 121), he says: ‘I have noticed them particularly abundant 
in the wooded glens in the Highlands, where the old stone 
dykes and rugged, weather-beaten trees afford ample choice 
for the selection of a nursery.”’ Was also noted in Moidart 
prior to 1865 (Mrs. Blackburn, Birds drawn from Nature), and 
in Ross-shire prior to 1872 (Bateson, Proc. Glasgow N. H. 
Soc., II., p. 182) (W. Evans, in litt.). 

Buack RepstarrT (Vol. I., p. 54).—Jreland.—One was seen 
near Courtown Harbour, co. Wexford, in February, 1909 
(M. D. Haviland, Field, 27, 1., 09). February is an unusual 
month for its occurrence in Ireland, October and November 
being the usual months. 

NIGHTINGALE (Vol. I., p. 55).—We omitted some information 
with regard to its range in Yorkshire, but this is not now in- 
cluded as it has been decided to open an inquiry into the 
exact range of the Nightingale in England. This inquiry 
will be organised by the Rev. F. C. R. Jourdain and N. F. 
Ticehurst, and will commence in the next volume. Meanwhile 
those who are able to make observations at any point on the 
outskirts of the normal range of the Nightingale, would 
greatly assist the inquiry by keeping full and careful notes 
of occurrences, and especially of instances of nesting which 
come under their notice. 

Wuireturoat (Vol. I., p. 55).—Scotland.—One was shot 
in June, 1897, and a pair nested at Eoligary, Barra, in 1900. 
They had been seen at Barra in May for several years (J. A. 
Harvie-Brown, Ann. S.N.H., 1902, p. 140). 

LEssER WHITETHROAT (Vol. I., p. 55).—Scotland.—One was 
shot on October 24th, 1898, on Barra (W. E. Clarke, Ann. 
S.N.H., 1899, p. 109). An adult male was killed at the 
Suleskerry Lighthouse on September 17th, 1902 (id., t.c., 
1903, p. 24). Both this and the Common Whitethroat were 
observed by Dr. Hamilton at Traigh, Loch Morar, in autumn 
of 1880 (cf. Zool., 1880, p. 503) (W. Evans, in litt.). 
Ireland.—The second example was taken on October 10th, 
1899, at the Innishtrahull Lighthouse (most northerly Irish 
light) (R. M. Barrington, Mig. B. Irish Lt. Stations, p. 72). 


GARDEN-WARBLER (Vol. I., p. 56).—Scotland.—One was 
shot at Barra on October 24th, 1898 (W. E. Clarke, Ann. 
S.N.H., 1899, p. 110). It is, in my experience, more plentiful 
and more generally distributed than the Blackcap in the Forth 
District, and also in Perthshire (W. Evans, 7n litt.). 

Woop-WreEN (Vol. I., p. 83).—Scotland.—Saunders says : 
“In Scotland it is fairly distributed, and has apparently 
spread northward of late years, being recorded by Messrs. 
Harvie-Brown and Buckley as breeding in the north-east of 
Sutherlandshire, and as having been identified at Dunbeath, 
in Caithness, and in West Ross.” According to Booth (Cata- 
logue, p. 107), it was abundant in the north of Scotland in 
the sixties. ‘‘I have,” he says, ‘‘ noticed this bird as being 
particularly numerous in the wildest glens of Perthshire, Ross- 
shire, and Caithness.”’ Was also noted in Moidart prior to 
1865 as seemingly a regular summer visitor, but ‘“‘ less common 
with us than the Willow-Warbler”’ (Mrs. Blackburn, t.c.). 
‘Tt is of general diffusion through the kingdom” (Selby, Brit. 
Ornithology, Vol. I., Ist ed., 1825, p. 189) (W. Evans, in litt.). 

GREENISH WILLOW-WARBLER (Vol. I., p. 82).—The speci- 
men taken at the Suleskerry Lighthouse in 1902 now proves to 
be an example of Eversmann’s Warbler (Phylloscopus borealis). 
Mr. Eagle Clarke obtained a similar bird on Fair Isle in 1908, 
and found that, although it only had a single wing-bar, it was 
a specimen of P. borealis. The fact that this species sometimes 
exhibited this character had escaped the attention of Mr. 
Howard Saunders and himself when they identified the Sule- 
skerry bird. It is possible that the only other British record 
for P. viridanus may also prove an error, and that the species 
may have to come off the British list (W. Eagle Clarke, Ann. 
iS: V7... 1909) p. 114). 

Hypouais ? sp. (Vol. I., p. 83).—Mr. F. C. Selous writes : 
‘““My friend Major Mangles when at school in Croydon took 
a nest with four eggs in an osier-bed in 1884. Two of these 
eggs were broken and the other two I have in my collection. 
They are undoubtedly eggs of either the Melodious or the 
Icterine Warbler. Howard Saunders and Mr. E. Bidwell 
both thought they belonged to the former species.” 

ReED-WARBLER (Vol. I., p. 84).—The first authentic example 
for Ireland was killed by striking the Rockabill Lighthouse on 
October 20th, 1908. Mr. A. H. Evans stated that he heard this 
species singing in a reed-bed on the Shannon, near Portumna, 
on July 23rd, 1904 (R. M. Barrington, Scient. Proc. Rk. Dublin 
So¢.;,.e1t.5p; 19); 

GREAT REED-WARBLER (Vol. I., p. 84).—One was shot in a 


reed-bed at one of the meres at Ellesmere, in Shropshire, 
about 1886. It had been noticed singing, and was supposed 
to be a Nightingale. It was stuffed by C. W. Lloyd, and 
purchased by H. Shaw; subsequently it passed through the 
hands of G. Cooke and G. F. Fox, and is now in Mr. W. S. 
Brocklehurst’s collection. It was examined by Mr. Forrest 
soon after Cooke bought it (H. E. Forrest, in litt., and Fauna 
of Shropshire, p. 111). 

GRASSHOPPER- WARBLER (S. page 89).—Scotland.—Breeding 
in Morayshire (near Elgin) in 1896—7-8, and not included 
in Messrs. Harvie-Brown and Buckley’s “‘ Fauna of Moray ”’ 
(R. H. Mackessach, Ann. S.N.H., 1900, p. 48). 

ALPINE ACCENTOR (Vol. I., p. 109).—One was shot ‘“‘a few 
years since” (1904) at Ettington, near Stratford-on-Avon, on 
the borders of Warwick and Worcester (R. F. Tomes, Vict. 
Tost. Warwick, 1.,.p: 191). 

BEARDED Titmouse (Vol. I., p. 109).—One was seen by 
Captain Henneker, who knew the bird well, in a reed-bed 
near Sudbury, Derbyshire, in the summer of 1896 (F. C. R. 
Jourdain, Vict. Hist. Derby, Vol. I., p. 126). 

CrESTED Titmouse (Vol. I., p. 110).—The bird observed 
by Baron von Higel was at Torquay, as already pointed out 
by Mr. W.S. M. D’ Urban (Vict. Hist. Devon, p. 301). 

Tree- Prerr (Vol. I., p. 112).—Scotland.—Booth (Catalogue, 
p. 17) says: ‘‘ Forest of Glenmore, in Inverness-shire, where 
in the summer of 1869 I found it breeding in considerable 
numbers ”’ (W. Evans, 7n Jitt.). 

Warter-Pirrt (Vol. I., p. 113).—Mr. O. V. Aplin writes that 
the square brackets enclosing his Oxfordshire record should 
be removed. Our only reason for inserting them was because 
Mr. Aplin considers there is no distinction between A. s. 
spipoletta and A. s. rupestris, but we consider that the two forms 
are quite distinct, and did not know to which his record 

A third example from Merioneth was obtained by Mr. 
Caton Haigh on February 21st, 1898 (H. E. Forrest, Vert. 
Fauna N. Wales, p. 123). 

GOLDEN ORIOLE (S. page 145).—Jreland.—A female was 
found dead at the Skelligs Lighthouse, co. Kerry, on May 23rd, 
1899 (R. M. Barrington, Mig. B. Irish Lt. Stations, p. 11). 

RED-BACKED SHRIKE (Vol. I., p. 148).—Jreland.—An im- 
mature bird (the second Irish specimen) was received by Mr. 
R. M. Barrington from the Wicklow Head Lighthouse, where 


it had been caught at the lantern on the night of September 
Ist, 1908 (R. M. Barrington, in litt.). Scotland.—Saunders 
says: ‘‘In the south-east of Scotland it has occasionally been 
known to breed, as well as at Cambuslang, Lanarkshire, in 1893 
[1892 in Ann. S.N.H., 1893, p. 182]; but beyond the Forth 
it is rare,’ etc. The first part of the above statement is too 
strong, no nesting having ever been proved; only birds seen in 
‘“‘ the breeding season,’ which may have been passing migrants, 
while the Cambuslang record is apparently of doubtful value ; 
Mr. J. Paterson, who sent it to the ‘“‘ Annals,” refers to it in 
his list of Clyde birds (Brit. Assocn. Handbook Fauna, etc., Clyde 
Area, 1901, p. 161) thus: ‘‘ Red-backed Shrike; recorded by 
the writer as having nested in Lanark (Ann. S.N.H., 1893, 
p. 183), but I fear deception somewhere ” (W. Evans, in litt.). 

Waxwine (Vol. I., p. 148).—Scotland.—In connection with 
the occurrence of the example in Unst in November, 1903, it 
is of interest to note that many were obtained in the south- 
east of Scotland (and elsewhere) about the same time (W. 
Evans, Ann. S.N.H., 1904, p. 54, etc.). 

Prep FiycatTcHer (Vol. I., p. 148).—Jreland.—The eighth 
Trish specimen was obtained at the Fastnet, co. Cork, on 
October 9th, 1899 (R. M. Barrington, Mig. B. Irish Lt. Stations, 
p. 11), and the ninth at the Tuskar Rock on September 11th, 
1901 (2d., in latt.). Scotland.—To the counties in which it has 
nested should be added Midlothian (W. Evans, in litt.). 

RED-BREASTED FrycarcHer (Vol. I., p. 149).—Ireland.— 
The data of the two last Irish specimens (cf. swpra, p. 248) 
are: Leg and wing sent from the Blackwater Bank Lightship, 
co. Wexford, on September 24th, 1898 (R. M. Barrington, 
t.c., p. 10); a female, or immature bird, was obtained on the 
Bull Rock, co. Cork, on November 18th, 1903, and is now 
in Mr. Barrington’s collection (R. M. Barrington, in Witt.). 

Hawrincu (Vol. I., p. 152).—North Wales——One was shot 
in a garden at Trescawen in June, 1906--the first record for 
the county (H. E. Forrest, in ltt.). Ireland.—The following 
have been taken at Irish lights: Hook Tower, co. Wexford, one, 
October 25th, 1897, and one, November 4th, 1897; Tuskar, 
co. Wexford, one, November Ist, 1897; Mine Head, co. 
Waterford, one, November 10th, 1898 (R. M. Barrington, 
t.c., p. 127). Scotland.—‘ So many occurrences of both old 
and young birds in the south-east of Scotland have of late 
come to my knowledge, that I now regard the species as 
widely distributed, and not rare in the district’? (W. Evans, 
im litt.). 

ADDITIONS SINCE = 1899. 41] 

Siskin (Vol. I., p. 180).—The record of its breeding in 
Derbyshire should be enclosed by square brackets. 

TREE-SpARROW (Vol. I., p. 181).— Scotland.—To the 
counties in which it is now known to nest, add Linlithgowshire. 
(W. Evans, on litt.). 

[NoRTHERN Buuirincny (Vol. I., p. 246).—One was shot on 
Caister Denes, Norfolk, on January 22nd, 1893 (cf. Zool., 
1894, p. 85). Mr. J. H. Fleming, of Toronto, has kindly sent 
for our inspection two skins (collectors unknown, but the labels 
seem quite genuine), a male taken at Bolton on June 18th, 1894, 
and a female at Gloucester on May Ist, 1889.] 

CrossBILL (Vol. I., p. 247)—‘“I have recently got satis- 
factory evidence that several pairs nested on the borders of 
Shropshire and Herefordshire in the spring of 1895. Crossbills 
were remarkably numerous here at that time ”’ (H. E. Forrest, 
in litt.). Ireland.—In 1907 Mr. C. Langham reported that 
he had Crossbills in several places at Tempo Manor, co. 
Fermanagh. They had been scarce for a year or two (R. J. 
Ussher, in litt.). A nest was found with fresh eggs on April 
17th, 1907, in co. Wicklow (R. Hamilton-Hunter, Jrish Nat., 
1907, p. 208). 

Snow-Buntine (Vol. I., p. 250).—Jreland.—An adult 
male was sent to Mr. Barrington from Aranmore, co. Donegal, 
on July 28th, 1898 (Birds of Ireland, p. 78). 

NutcraAcKER (Vol. I., p. 254).—One was seen near Scotton 
Common, Lincolnshire, on August 14th, 1900 (F. M. Burton, 
Nat., 1900, p. 319). 

KineFrisHerR (S. page 279)—One on River Broom, West 
Ross, September, 1898 (Ann. S.NV.H., 1899, p. 47). 

Wryneck (Vol. I., p. 280).—Jreland.—One was found dead 
on the Fastnet, co. Cork, on September 17th, 1898 (R. M. 
Barrington, Mig. B. Irish Lt. Stations, p. 181). 

GREAT SpoTTED WooDPECKER (Vol. I., p. 281).—Scotland. 
—The Wells and Minto woods are in Roxburghshire. Jreland. 
—Two bones found by Mr. Ussher in separate caves in co. 
Clare and identified by Mr. E. T. Newton as belonging to this 
species, point to its being formerly a resident in Ireland 
(cf. List of I. Birds, p. 24). 

Rouuer (Vol. I., p. 281).—Jreland.—Ten have been obtained 
—the last in co. Donegal on October 10th, 1891 (R. J. Ussher, 
Inst of I. Birds, p. 24). 

Brsz-Eater (Vol. I., p. 282).—The Yorkshire record should 


have been ascribed to Mr. G. W. Murdoch (cf. Birds of Yorks., 
p. 284, and Yorks. Weekly Post, 23, 1x., 05). 

Hoorort (Vol. I., p. 282).—One shot near Brackley, 
Northampton, in May, 1908 (O. V. Aplin, Zool., 1908, p. 312). 

Litre Owt (Vol. I., pp. 315 and 335).—Several were seen 
in the summer of 1908, and five were liberated in Essex 
(A. W.,” Feeld, 15, vut., 08). One was shot early in 1909 
at Burton-on-Trent (F.C. R. Jourdain, in litt.). Of the one 
recorded from Scotland (p. 315) Mr. G. Sim stated that he 
had since heard of facts which led him to suspect that the 
bird was an escape (Vert. Fauna Dee, addenda). 

Snowy Owt (Vol. I., p. 315).—Jreland.—One was seen by 
Captain Kirkwood in December, 1906, at Bartragh, co. Mayo 
(R. Warren, Zool., 1907, p. 73). An immature female was 
obtained in co. Mayo about the beginning of December, 1906, 
and an immature male (?) was shot near Ardagh, co. Kerry, 
and was received on March 6th, 1907 (R. J. Ussher (fide W. 
J. Williams), Zrish Nat.,“ 1909, p. 100). 

MarsH-HarrierR (Vol. I., p. 316).—The following have 
been shot at Hickling, Norfolk :—Adult ¢ May 9th, 1905; 
adult ¢ May 17th, 1906; and adult ? June 25th, 1906 
(F. Smalley, in litt.). 

Montacu’s Harrier (Vol. I., p. 317).—The following have 
been shot in Norfolk :—Adult female, Hickling, May 11th, 
1906; adult female, June Ist, and adult male, June 17th, 
1907, near Lynn (F. Smalley, in litt.). 

All these records point to the fact that the birds would 
have bred in these districts had they not been shot. No words 
are too strong to condemn this wanton destruction, and it 
may be pointed out (since it is not generally realised) that, as 
long as keepers know that they can dispose of such birds, the 
more inclined will they be to destroy them. 

ROUGH-LEGGED Buzzarp (Vol. I., p. 319).—Jreland.—Only 
twelve (eleven obtained, one seen) are recorded in the “ Birds 
of Ireland,” and of these the one shot on October 4th, 1899, 
is mentioned in the Appendix. The second example referred 
to (p. 319) was received by Mr. Williams on November 5th, 
1902, and not “in the early part of 1903,” as recorded in the 
“Trish Naturalist.” Of the two seen in December, 1906, 
the second—a female—frequented the moors during the 
winter, and was eventually poisoned and received by Mr. 
Williams on February 26th, 1907 (R. J. Ussher, in litt., and 
Irish Nat., 1909, p. 100). There are thus seventeen records 
from Ireland, sixteen obtained, and one seen. 


Buack Kite (Vol. I., p. 319).—The date given for the 
Aberdeen specimen in Sim’s ‘Vert. Fauna of Dee” is 
April 18th, 1901; and he says it was shot within the city 
boundary (W. Evans, in litt.). 

GREENLAND Fatcon (Vol. IL, p. 320).—North Wales.— 
Mr. A. Heneage Cox writes that there is a specimen at Voelas 
Hall, Denbighshire, which was trapped by the keeper there. 
This is the second record for North Wales (H. E. Forrest, 
on liit.).—Ireland.Several mistakes occur in this summary, 
and several more birds have been obtained and not recorded. 
Mr. Ussher provides us with the following list, which it 
seems better to print in full, and it must be taken to cancel 
that on p. 320 :— 

juv., Horn Head, Donegal, shot end December, 1903 (Zool., 1904, 

ps its), 
? juv., Horn Head, Donegal, trapped March 21st, 1905 (I. Nat., 
| 1905, ps 119). 
& ) one, Owey Island, Donegal, seen March 14th, 1905 (J. Nat., 1905, 
n | p. 201). 
5 6 Glenties, Donegal, shot October 25th, 1905 (J. Nat., 1905, 
p. 263). 
| ¢ Carrickfergus, Antrim, shot February 12th, 1906 (I. Nat., 1906, 
Pp. 7h0). 
? nearly adult, Crossmolina, Mayo, trapped April 9th, 1905 
(f. Nats;, W905: 202). 
one, Clare Island, Mayo, seen March 10th, 1905 (I. Nat., 1905, 
p: 201): 
? juv., Belmullet, Mayo, shot March 29th, 1905 (I. Nat., 1905, 
p- 201). 
adult (?) Belmullet, Mayo, shot March 31st, 1905 (I. Nat., 1905, 
gi po.’ 207). 
= | adult (?) Belmullet, Mayo, shot April 2nd, 1905 (I. Nat., 1905, 
py p- 201). - 
S < one Belmullet, Mayo, captured and escaped, March 28th, 1905 
A (I. Nat., 1905, p. 202). 
© | two, Belmullet, Mayo, seen March and April, 1905 (G. Wallace, 
on ltt.). 
$ juv., Castlegore, Mayo, shot March 30th, 1906 (in coll. of C. J. 
? juv., Ballysodare, Sligo, shot December 29th-30th, 1906 (fide 
Williams and Sons), 

$ juv., Westport, Mayo, shot April 10th-12th, 1907 (fide Williams 
and Sons). 

? juv., Mizen Head, Cork, shot March, 1905 (I. Nat., 1905, 
p. 202). 


g Skelligs, Kerry, shot March, 1905 (I. Naé, 1905, p. 202). 
g very white, Skelligs, Kerry, shot March, 1905 (J. Naét., 1905, 
p. 202). 
g juv., Skelligs, Kerry, shot March, 1905 (I. Nat., 1905, 
p. 202). 



This list comprises details of fifteen birds preserved, a six- 
teenth caught and escaped, and four or more others seen 
between 1903 and 1907. The Greenland Falcon seems to 
visit Ireland more frequently in March and April than any 
other months. 

IcELAND Fatcon (Vol. I., p. 321).—Jreland._The examples 
recorded were seen and both obtained in the early part of 
1905 (see R. J. Ussher, List of I. Birds, p. 29). 

Hospsy (Vol. I., p. 321).—Found breeding in June, 1894, 
near Goyts Bridge, on the Derbyshire side of the River Goyt 
(Coward and Oldham, B. of Cheshire, p. 255). Ireland.—The 
tenth example from Ireland was picked up under a telephone 
wire at Loftus Hall, Fethard, co. Wexford, on April 16th, 
1899 (R. M. Barrington, Mig. B. Irish Lt. Stations, p. 3). The 
eleventh included in Mr. Ussher’s ‘‘ List of Irish Birds”’ rests 
upon insufficient evidence (R. J. Ussher, 7n litt.). 

Osprey (S. p. 359).—We did not mention the visits of this 
species to Great Britain owing to their regularity, but the 
following records from Ireland may be noted :—One, co. Sligo, 
May 3rd, 1901; ¢ juv., co. Kerry, September 30th, 1903; 
¢ ad., co. Louth, end of April, 1907; ¢ juv.andone juv., co. 
Sligo, October 15th and 29th, 1907 (R. J. Ussher, an litt.). 
The two last have already been referred to (cf. Vol. I., p. 327), 
but the month was wrongly given as November. 

Nicut-Hsron (Vol. I., p. 348).—Jreland.—An adult female 
was obtained at Ardee, co. Louth, on May 10th, 1900 (R. J. 
Ussher, fide Williams and Sons, in litt.) Animmature bird taken 
on the Dodder, co. Dublin, on March 31st, 1904, is in the 
National Museum, Dublin (7d.). At the Belfast Nat. Field 
Club meeting on October 25th, 1907, Mr. S. M. Stears 
exhibited a specimen of this bird (J7ish Nat., 1908, p. 65). 
Twenty-four records since 1834 (R. J. Ussher, List of J. 
Birds, p. 31). 

LirrLe Birrern (Vol. I., p. 349).—An adult male shot at 
Claverley, near Bridgnorth, in September, 1897, is the fifth 
record for Shropshire (H. E. Forrest, in litt.). Ireland.— 
About thirty have been obtained (R.*J. Ussher, List of J. 
Birds, p. 31). 

AMERICAN BritrerN (Vol. I., p. 349).—Jreland.—The four 
obtained since the publication of the “ Birds of Ireland ” 
(cf. antea, Vol. II., p. 276) are as follows :—Tralee, co. Kerry, 
November 2nd, 1901; Carlow, January, 1902; Moorstown, 
co. Tipperary, November 30th, 1904; near Colligan, co. 
Waterford, December 24th, 1904 (R. J. Ussher, in litt.). 


Gtossy Isis (Vol. I., p. 350).—Jreland.—The ‘‘ Manual ” 
gives twenty from Ireland, the “ Birds of Ireland” twenty- 
two, “* List of Irish Birds ” (1908), thirty-six. Of the fourteen 
extra to the “ Birds of Ireland ”’ three were obtained in each 
of the counties of Cork, Waterford, and Wexford, two in Clare, 
and one each in Dublin, Down, and Galway. Seven of these 
occurred in September, five in October, and one in November 
(R. J. Ussher, in litt.). 

SPOONBILL (Vol. I., p. 350).—Jreland.—One was obtained in 
co. Galway on December 16th, 1890 (R. J. Ussher, fide Williams 
and Sons, in litt.). One was obtained at Tralee, co. Kerry, 
in September or October, 1904 (id., fide Rohu and Sons). 

Grey Lac-Gooss (Vol. II., p. 24).—With reference to the 
young bird obtained in the Tay area in 1906 Mr. Harvie-Brown 
writes :—‘‘ Semi-domesticated Grey Lags have bred for some 
years close to and even within the watershed of Tay, near the 
southern boundaries, and truly wild Grey Lags have never 
been recorded as nesting anywhere within forty miles of the 
north-west boundary of the Tay area.” 

[Ruppy SHELD-Duck (Vol. II., p. 51).—A pair was shot on 
the Essex coast early in January, 1908 (J. C. F. Fryer, Field, 1, 
me. 08); | 

GADWALL (Vol. II., p. 52).—Jreland.—One, of a pair, shot 
on the Barrow, near Stradbally, Queens co., February 7th, 
1908 (John W. Young, Field, 15, 11.,08). One was shot in 
November, 1907, near Wexford Harbour (W. Rocke, Field, 
22, 11., 08). Notso rare in Ireland (Sligo, Roscommon and 
Leitrim) as might be supposed from records given. It is a 
regular visitor in small numbers to Lough Arrow: three or 
four couples were on the lough during the first half of April, 
1909. This information comes to me from Messrs. J. 
Henderson, senr. and junr., both of whom are well acquainted 
with the bird (F. C: R. Jourdain, in litt.). 

SHOVELER (Vol. II., p. 52).—A few pairs are said to breed 
on the moors of Somersetshire (F. L. Blathwayt, Vict. Hist. 
‘Somerset, Vol. I., p. 155). A brood was hatched both in 1904 
and 1905 ona pool at Patshull, Staffs. (Lord Dartmouth, Field, 
15, vitt., 08). Lreland.—Increasing as a breeding species in 
all the provinces (R. J. Ussher, 2n litt.). 

Pinrart (Vol. IIL., p. 54).—Hawick is in Roxburgh, not 
Berwick. But the lochs at which both nests are said to have 
been found are in Selkirk (W. Evans, in Iitt.). 

GARGANEY (Vol. II., p. 54).—A pair was seen on Ellesmere, 
Shropshire, in April, 1906 (H. E. Forrest, in litt.). Ireland.— 


One was shot near the Curragh of Kildare on September 21st, 
1899 (R. J. Ussher, List of I. Birds, p. 34). Scotland.— Seven 
killed at Pitfour, Aberdeenshire, October 22nd, 1898 (Ann 
S.N.H., 1899, p. 50). 

WicrEon and Pocuarp (Vol. II., pp. 55, 56.—Scotland.— 
‘The Wigeon and Pochard have both been found nesting in 
Ross-shire [Gairloch (?) ], and the eggs obtained’ (Bateson, 
1872, Proc. N. H. Soc., Glasgow, II., p. 182). In the last line 
of page 55 (swpra) for ‘‘ 1902” read “ 1899.” 

RED-CRESTED PocuarD (Vol. II., p. 56).—The second 
record mentioned under Yorkshire refers to the same bird 
as the first, and is wrongly dated (see Nat., 1900, p. 322). 

Frerrucinous Duck (Vol. II., p. 57).—Ireland.—“ Mr. F. 
Dyer, of Ramsgate, preserved one of two shot at Cruiserath, 
co. Meath, in December, 1889, as I am informed by Mr. J. 
K. Harting, in litt.”” (R. J. Ussher, in litt.). 

TurrED Duck (Vol. II., p. 83).—WScotland.—Along with 
Mr. Harvie-Brown’s two papers in the “ Ann. S.N.H.” and 
‘“‘ Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society ”’ should be read 
Mr. W. Evans’ paper in ‘Ann. S.N.H.,” 1896, pp. 148 
to 155. 

Scaup-Duck (Vol. II., p. 85).—Jreland.—“I have seen 
several on a lake near the coast in Mayo in June, 1907” 
(R. J. Ussher, 2n litt.). Scotland.—For correction of Stark’s 
nesting record see Vol. II., p. 132. 

GOLDEN-EYE (S. page 451).—Flocks, partly composed of 
males in adult plumage, seen on two lochs in the Forth area in 
summer of 1908 (W. Evans, Ann. S.N.H., 1909, p. 49). 

LONG-TAILED Duck (S. page 455).—Jreland.—Occurs in 
winter on the north and west coasts down to Kerry (Zool., 
1907, p. 159). Several have been met with on Lough Corrib, 
and one of them (a male in breeding plumage) was shot in 
April, 1900, and is in the Nat. Museum in Dublin. A flock 
of five was seen on Lough Beg, and specimens were obtained 
(Brit. Assoc. Guide to Belfast, 1902). Three mature birds in 
Belfast Lough in May, 1898 (ibid.) (R. J. Ussher, in litt.). 

Eiper Duck (Vol. II., p. 86).—Line 3, for ‘‘ Hansa”’ read 
“« Handa.” 

GoosaANDER (Vol. II., p. 87).—IJreland.—“‘ On January 
16th, 1909, W. J. Williams wrote ‘ Adult male Goosander 
from Wicklow. I have not handled one for at least seven 
years’ ”’ (R. J. Ussher, in liit.). 

Stock-Dove (Vol. II., p. 125).—Scotland.—An old record 
for the south-west of Scotland (Ecclefechan, 1858) is given in 


the ‘‘ Zoologist ’’ for 1859 (p. 6378), as pointed out in my note 
in “ Ann. §.N.H.,” 1896, p. 254 (W. Evans, in liit.). 

TurtLe-Dove (Vol. IL., p. 126).—Yorkshire.—Nests 
annually, and is by no means rare in the Scarborough district. 
Also found at Wetherby, and nests regularly near Harrogate 
and Driffield (W. Gyngell, Nat., 1908, p. 464). 

Buack Grouse (Vol. II., p. 127).—Two hybrids, apparently 
between Black and Red Grouse, were shot by Mr. A. Foster, 
of Bettws-y-coed, one on December 9th, 1895, and the other 
on November 20th, 1897, on Yspytty Moor, Carnarvon (H. 
E. Forrest, Vert. Faun. N. Wales, p. 307). Ireland.—Note the 
correction, Vol. IT., p. 167. 

PrarRMIGAN (Vol. ITI., p. 128).—Note the correction Vol. II., 
Da, 167. 

SporreD Crake (Vol. IL., p. 129).—Jreland.—In addition 
to those mentioned Mr. R. J. Ussher provides us with par- 
ticulars of the following examples :—One, Castlerea, co. 
Roscommon, October 20th, 1900; two, King’s co., October 
7th, 1904; one, co. Fermanagh, October 13th, 1904; one, 
Balbriggan, co. Dublin, November 26th, 1906 ; one, Drogheda, 
co. Louth, December 4th, 1906 (fide Williams and Sons) ; one, 
co. Dublin, October 6th, 1902 (fide R. M. Barrington) ; one, 
Buttevant, co. Cork, January 4th, 1904 (Rohu and Son, J. Nat., 
1904, p. 98). 

[Crane (Vol. II., p. 147).—Two were shot on December Ist, 
1903, at Knowle, Warwickshire, and were exhibited at a 
meeting of the Birmingham Nat. Hist. and Phil. Society 
(A. H. Duncalfe, on litt.). These seem likely to have been 
escaped birds. | 

TURNSTONE (S. p. 557).—Has now been definitely recorded 
for Derbyshire (F. C. R. Jourdain, Zool., 1909, p. 111) and 
also Staffordshire (J. R. B. Masefield, R. and Tr. N. Staffs. 
F. Club, 1909). Jreland.—Found regularly throughout the 
year along the Dublin coast. A female with ripe ova was. 
obtained on July 18th, 1900, but was without a mate (C.J. 
Patten, Nat., 1909, p. 51). 

Avocet (Vol. II., p. 228).—The east Sussex coast should 
have been included after Kent, as it forms a continuous 
coastline, but the records seem to be few. Mr. H. G. 
Alexander reminds us that one was seen on several days in 
March, 1906, by his brother and himself (cf. Zool., 1906, p. 

Grey PHaLarope (Vol. II., p. 229).—Five are recorded 
from the Isle of Man (P. G. Ralfe, Birds I. of M., p. 213). 


One was shot at Carno, Montgomeryshire, on October 25th, 
1907 (H. E. Forrest, in litt.) One was shot near Hilbre 
Island in November, 1898 (Coward and Oldham, B. of 
Cheshire, p. 256). Ireland.—One was shot on Lough Foyle, 
near Eglinton, co. Londonderry, on September 18th, 1899 
(D. C. Campbell, J. Nat., 1900, p. 81). Mr. Ussher informs 
us of two others—one near Fethard, co. Tipperary, on 
November 30th, 1906 (fide C. J. Carroll), and one at Moy- 
vally, co. Meath, on October 21st, 1902 (fide Williams and 

RED-NECKED PHALAROPE (Vol. II., p. 229).—An adult in 
winter plumage (the first authentic record for Shropshire) 
was shot near Shrewsbury on November Ist, 1904 (H. E. 
Forrest, in litt.). 

GREAT SNIPE (Vol. II., p. 229).—Jreland.—The thirteenth for 
Ireland was a male obtained in co. Antrim in October, 1901, 
and is inthe National Museum, Dublin (R. J. Ussher, in litt.). 
Scotland.—One shot near Elgin, October 15th, 1898 (Ann. 
S_N.H., 1899, p. 51). 

LirtLe Srint (8. p. 585).—The third recorded specimen for 
Derbyshire was shot out of a trip of a dozen on the sewage 
farm at Egginton, September 26th, 1908, and is now in the 
possession of Mr. T. E. Auden (F. C. R. Jourdain, in litt.). 

CURLEW-SANDPIPER (Vol. II., p. 268).—Recorded for the 
first time for Derbyshire (Zool., 1906, p. 141). reland.—Flocks 
of considerable size (as many as 200 to 300) have been seen 
exceptionally in autumn on the Dublin coast (C. J. Patten, 
Aquatic Birds, p. 302). 

PURPLE SANDPIPER (S. p. 593).—Jreland.—Frequently seen 
on the Dublin coast in nuptial plumage as late as the middle of 
May (C. J. Patten, Aquatic Birds, p. 306). A pair found by 
Witherby on a small island off the coast of Galway on May 
30th, 1895, although in nuptial plumage had the sexual organs 
still undeveloped. 

Kwort (Vol. IL., p. 268).—Jreland.—One in summer plumage 
taken in July, 1904, at Belmullet, co. Mayo, is in the National 
Museum, Dublin (R. J. Ussher, in litt.). 

SANDERLING (S. p. 597).—Ireland.—Has been observed on 
the Dublin coast in every month of the year. Even in July 
flocks of fifty have been seen, but the condition of their genital 
organs has not been examined (C. J. Patten, Nat., pp. 83-85). 
A large flock was observed by Mr. Ussher on the shore at Cross, — 
co. Mayo, on June 3rd, 1907, and one was shot there in the 
beginning of August, 1907 (in litt.). 


Rurr (Vol. II., p. 269).—Jreland.—Mr. Ussher sends us a 
list of eighteen occurrences, briefly as follows :—1901, May, 
a male in breeding dress, co. Down ; one, August, co. Wexford ; 
one, September, co. Wicklow ; 1902, one, August, co. Mayo ; 
one, September, co. Donegal; 1904, one, September, co. 
Westmeath ; one, October, co. Wexford ; 1905, two, August, 
and three September, co. Kildare; two, September, King’s 
co.; one, October, co. Cavan; 1908, two, September, co. 
Clare ; one from co. Limerick, date unknown. 

Woop-SANDPIPER (Vol. II., p. 269).—Only three appear 
to be recorded for North Wales, the last being shot by Mr. 
Caton Haigh on May 3rd, 1898, in Carnarvonshire (H. E. 
Forrest, Vert. F. N. Wales, p. 358). 

SportEeD REDSHANK (Vol. II., p. 270).—Jreland.—An im- 
mature female was obtained on Great Island, Cork Harbour, 
on December 26th, 1898 (W. B. Barrington, in litt., to R. J. 

Bar-TAILED Gopwit (S. p. 623).—Ireland.—Flock of 
several hundred on Dublin coast on June 7th, 1899 (C. J. 
Patten, Aquatic Birds). 

BLACK-TAILED Gopwit (Vol. II., p. 270).—Scotland.—In 
“Forth” (Ann. S.N.H., 1903, p. 22, and 1904, p. 57), and 
Tiree (Ibis, 1903; p. 50). 

Biack TERN (Vol. II., p. 305).—An immature bird was 
shot near Broseley, Shropshire, on September 18th, 1901. 
In 1904 a pair visited Ellesmere from June 8th—llth, and two 
immature birds were seen on September Ist, 1904 (H. E. 
Forrest, in litt.). Under Derby, for “ Etwell,’” read “‘ Etwall.” 
Ireland.—Mr. Ussher gives us information of the following 
from Messrs. Williams and Sons’ books :—One, co. Limerick, 
September 30th, 1901 (in National Museum); one (immature), 
Athlone, September 28th, 1903; one (immature), co. Cavan, 
October 7th, 1903. 

WHITE-WINGED BiAck TERN (Vol. II., p. 306).—Ireland.— 
Six are recorded in the “ Birds of Ireland” (p. 213) against 
five in the “‘ Manual.” 

SanpwicH TERN (Vol. II., p. 306).—A male (the first re- 
corded for Shropshire) was found dead near Shrewsbury in 
August, 1897 (H. E. Forrest, in litt.). 

Lirtte TrErRN (Vol. II., p. 308).—WScotland.—A few pairs 
have again nested in the Forth area for a year or two past. 
This is of some importance in view of Saunders’ statement 
that this Tern had ceased to nest in Haddingtonshire, which 
was quite correct (W. Evans, in litt.). 


Sooty Tern (Vol. If., p. 308)—The specimen figured in 
the ‘‘ Manual ”’ was not shot as there stated (p. 653) but killed 
with a stone (F. C. R. Jourdain, in litt.). 

LittLe Guu (Vol. I1., p. 328).—/reland.—An adult in winter 
plumage was killed about March 7th, 1909, near Laytown, 
co. Meath (R. M. Barrington, [rish Nat., 1909, p. 99). 

and 677).—Scotland.—Mr. Evans brings forward much evi- 
dence to prove that the naturalists who visited the Bass Rock 
during the first half of last century were unanimous in 
regarding the Black-backs that then bred there as Larus 
marinus, and that since about 1860, L. fuscus alone has been 
ascertained to nest there. The early ornithologists, however, 
left behind no conclusive evidence that their identification 
was correct (W. Evans, Proc. R. Phys. Soc. Edin., Vol. XVI., 
pp. 42-51). 

Guaucous Guu (Vol. II., p. 328).—Ireland.—In addition 
to those mentioned, the following occurrences supplied by 
Mr. Ussher do not appear to have been recorded :—1900, 
November 16th, co. Kerry; 1901; March 19th, co. Mayo; 
April 2nd, co. Kerry; 1904, January 25th, co. Donegal ; 
February 9th, co. Wicklow ; March 3rd, co. Donegal; March 
15th, co. Donegal ; December 2nd, co. Mayo ; 1905, December 
15th, co. Mayo; 1906, December 27th, locality uncertain 
(fide Williams and Sons) ; 1907, March 31st, co. Donegal (fide 
W. A. Hamilton); January llth, co. Mayo (in National 
Museum). This last may be the same bird as that recorded 
from Bartragh on December 8th, 1906 (cf. supra, p. 329), since 
the date here given is the date of the Museum register. 

IcELAND-GULL (Vol. II., p. 329).—Jreland.—Mr. Ussher gives 
us particulars of eleven obtained (many others have been 
seen), and amongst them we may note one from co. Galway 
on April 21st, 1906, and one from co. Londonderry on April 
20th, 1903 (J. Nat., 1903, p. 198), in addition to the late 
occurrences already mentioned. 

KITTIWAKE GULL (S. page 683).—Scotland.—There are now 
considerably over 100 pairs breeding on the St. Abb’s Cliffs. 
First noticed there about a dozen years ago (W. Evans, in 

GreAT SKvua (Vol. II., p. 330).—Holyhead record should 
have been under North Wales, not Ireland. An adult 

obtained on the River Shannon at Portumna, in October, 
1906, is in Mr. C. J. Carroll’s collection (R. J. Ussher, in litt.). 


PoMATORHINE SkKvaA (Vol. II., p. 330).—Jreland.—In addi- 
tion to those mentioned, Mr. Ussher informs us of the following 
unrecorded examples :—Ballynakill, co. Galway, Septemk rc 
16th, 1902 ; co. Tipperary, September 19th, 1902 (fide Williams 
and Sons); off Cork Harbour, November 9th, 1903; off 
co. Galway, May 9th, 1904; off south-west coast, May, 1904. 

LonG-TAILED Skva (Vol. IL., p. 331).—Jreland._September 
22nd, 1899 (? locality) ; co. Mayo, August 22nd, 1903 (R. J. 
Ussher, in litt., fide Williams and Sons). The following were 
seen by Mr. G. P. Farran: one fifty miles west of Tearaght, 
August 7th, 1906; one forty-five miles west of Skelligs, 
August 8th, 1906; one sixty-two miles south-west by west 
of Bull Rock, September 11th, 1907 (td., in hit.). 

BLACK-THROATED Diver (Vol. II., p. 333).—Ireland.— 
An adult and an immature bird are recorded in Williams 
and Sons’ books for July 28th, 1906 (R. J. Ussher, an litt.). 

GREAT-CRESTED GREBE (Vol. II., p. 333).—Scotland.—It 
may be recalled that Selby in 1838 (British Ornithology, 
Vol. II., p. 394) stated that it bred annually on a few of the 
northern Scottish lakes (W. Evans, in litt.). 

SLAVONIAN GREBE (Vol. II., p. 334).—Jreland.—One in 
summer plumage was obtained at Belmullet, co. Mayo, in 
April, 1907 (R. J. Ussher, in lit.). 

BLACK-NECKED GREBE (Vol. II., p. 369).—Jreland.—Three 
have been obtained since the publication of the “ Birds of 
Ireland” ; one has been mentioned, the other two Mr. Ussher 
informs us are: Mullingar, December 30th, 1901 (fide Williams 
and Sons) ; King’s co., July 4th, 1907 (H. E. Joly, in litt.). 

Manx SHEARWATER (Vol. II., p. 372).—Scotland.—Present 
in the Firth of Forth every year from May to October; at 
first, only a few, but in hundreds during August and Sep- 
tember. Odd birds have occasionally been seen at other times 
(February, etc.), (W. Evans, in litt.). 

Futmar (Vol. II., p. 373).—One was shot by Mr. Wise on 
February 23rd, 1908, off Kingsgate, Thanet, Kent (C. Ingram, 
Zool., 1908, p. 272). One was picked up dead at Canty Bay, 
near North Berwick, on July 16th, 1908. A pair is said by 
the lighthouse-keepers on the Bass Rock to have nested there 
in 1906 (W. and T. Malloch, ¢.c., 1908, p. 396), but we can 
give no credence to this last statement. Mr. W. Evans 
writes :—‘‘ The principal lighthouse-keeper on the Bass tells me 
he never heard it suggested that the Fulmar had bred on the 
Rock. He has no doubt the recorded nesting of the Storm- 
Petrel there in June, 1904, is what is meant.”’ 



I HAVE been invited to write a Life of the late Professor 
Alfred Newton. If any of your readers who have letters or 
reminiscences, or any other interesting information about 
Professor Newton, will be kind enough to communicate with 
me at the Savile Club, 107, Piccadilly, W., I shall be 
exceedingly grateful. I will, of course, undertake to return 
all letters, etc., to the senders. 

A. F. R. Wo.LuLaston. 


In the last issue of ‘‘ The Annals of Scottish Natural History ” 
(1909, pp. 69-75) Mr. W. Eagle Clarke gives a report on the 
observations made on this now well-known island during 
1908. The results are even more extraordinary than in 
previous years (cf. Vol. I., pp. 233 and 381), and this may be 
due to the fact that by the generosity of friends Mr. Clarke 
has been enabled to instal a regular observer in the person of 
xeorge Stout, a youthful inhabitant of the island, who had 
already shown himself an apt pupil. Beyond this important 
arrangement Mr. Clarke himself spent six weeks on the island 
in the autumn. Mr. Clarke’s report is this year confined to 
those species which are additions to the fauna of the island, 
and he tells us that a great mass of information is reserved for 
publication in a further contribution. In those occurrences 
which are referred to, however, there is a most unfortunate 
lack of detail, which greatly lessens their interest. The list 
of Fair Island birds is now brought up to the remarkable total 
of 185. We learn that Mr. Eagle Clarke has had the good 
fortune to secure the interest of the proprietor of the island 
in the investigations, and we understand that Mr. Clarke has 
now been granted the sole right to shoot on the island. The 
following is a brief summary of the most notable items :— 

BaRRED WARBLER (Sylvia nisoria).—Several occurred in 
autumn and were identified beyond doubt. 

SUBALPINE WARBLER (Sylvia subalpina).—This is one of 
the most interesting of these remarkable records, but only 
the bare fact that a bird of this species occurred during the year 
is chronicled. It will be remembered that the only other 
known occurrence of this species was at St. Kilda on June 
13th and 14th, 1894 (cf. Saunders’ Manual, p. 53). Now 

NOTES. 425 

that Dr. Hartert has distinguished between the various races 
of this species (Vog. pal. Fauna, pp. 596-7), it would be 
interesting to discover the region of the origin of this specimen 
(we presume the bird-was secured) by a careful comparison. 

IcTERINE WARBLER (Hypolais icterina).—The occurrence 
of this species can only be inferred by its inclusion in the list 
and by the remark that it has not been previously recorded 
from Scotland ! 

Savr’s WarRBLER (Locustella luscinioides).—The occurrence 
of this species in the spring is truly, as Mr. Clarke says, one 
of the most interesting events in British ornithology for 
many years. Since it became extinct as a breeding species in 
1856 it has never been identified with certainty in England, 
and it has never before been known to visit Scotland. 

ALPINE ACCENTOR (Accentor collaris)—One was seen at 
close quarters by Mr. Clarke in the autumn resting on the face 
of one of the great cliffs on the west side of the island. This 
Species is new to Scotland. 

BuLuE-HEADED WaaraiL (Motacilla flava).—This species 
occurred, but no details are given. 

ReED-THROATED Preir (Anthus cervinus).—This species 
occurred on two occasions during Mr. Clarke’s visit in the 
autumn. Mr. Nicoll has shown (antea, p. 278) that there are 
very few reliable records of this bird’s occurrence in the British 

Ricuarp’s Prerr (Anthus richardi).—Several appeared in the 
autumn. Only once before recorded for Scotland. 

GOLDEN ORIOLE (Oriolus galbula).—Observed both in spring 
and autumn. 

Hawrincu (Coccothraustes vulgaris)—A male in spring. 
There being no trees or shrubs it lived on the ground and fed 
on the dung of ponies. 

Two-BARRED CrossBILL (Loxia bifasciata).—One in spring ; 
lived much the same as the Hawfinch. Only once previously 
recorded for Scotland. 

Rustic Buntine (Hmberiza rustica).—Single birds on both 
passages. Mr. Clarke remarks that it has only once before 
been known to visit Scotland, but we may remind him that 
besides the bird recorded by himself from Cape Wrath on 
May 11th, 1906, a pair was reported as obtained at Torphins, 
Aberdeenshire, in March, 1905 (cf. Vol. I., p. 249). 

RosE-COLOURED STARLING (Pastor roseus).—An adult male 
in spring. A similar bird was reported on good evidence in 

Turrep Duck (Fuligula cristata).—One or two appeared on 
migration, but whether in spring or autumn is not stated. 


Temmincre’s Stintr (Lringa temmincki).—Occurred in 
autumn ; very rare visitor to Scotland. 

Woop-SanpDpPrreR (Z'otanus glareola).—This bird also 
occurred, but no details are given. It seems curiously rare in 
Orkney and Shetland. 

BLACK-TAILED Gopwit (Limosa belgica).—One visited the 
island in mid-winter. 


Ir may be of interest to put on record the following 
particulars of Cuckoos’ eggs which I had the good fortune to 
find last year :— 

Date. Place. Foster Parent. Cuckoo’s Egg. 
May 18th. Sussex. Robin, 3 eggs. (No. 1.) Colour like Robin’s 

May 30th. Surrey. Tree-Pipit, (No. 2.) Dark grey-brown. 
4 eggs, red 
spotted form. 
June Ist. Same Tree-Pipit, (No. 3.) Pale pink - brown, 
place. 3 eggs, grey similar to a Robin’s egg. 

blotched form. Found six inches from the 
cup of the nest, on the 
‘* platform.” 
June 7th. Same Tree-Pipit, (No. “ Pale pink-brown, like 
place. 1 egg, red No. 3. 
spotted form. 
(No. 5.) Another egg outside 
the nest on the *‘ platform.” 
This one larger than No. 4, 
and grey-brown like No. 2. 
This egg had a small hole in 
it, and the two in the nest 
were stuck together by the 
contents of another egg, 
which had probably been 
eaten. No more eggs laid, 

and the nest deserted. 
June 15th. Hamp- Meadow-Pipit, (No. 6.) Green-yellow. 

shire. 4 eggs. 
June 24th. Surrey. Hedge-Sparrow, (No. 7.) Like a Pied-Wagtail’s 
3 eggs. egg. 
July 3rd. Same Hedge-Sparrow, (No. 8.) As No. 7. 
place. 2 eggs. 


WirH reference to the nest described in British Brrps 
(antea, p. 381), I regret to say that on further investigation 
I found that the statement that the birds were seen feeding 
the young was incorrect. The position of the nest did not 
permit a view of its contents, and the nest itself contains no 
evidence of its having contained young. It can be proved 

NOTES. 425 
that the Chaffinches built the nest in December, and were 
constantly about it during January and February, and that 
the hen brooded upon it. Beyond that nothing is certainly 
known, and it is extremely doubtful if a brood could have 

been reared successfully for lack of suitable food. 
H. E. Forrest. 


In the third line of Mr. Ogilvie-Grant’s note on this subject 
(swpra, p. 386) the name “Glen Troot” should be “Glen 
Trool.”” Two specimens of a similar hybrid obtained on the 
borders of Dumfriesshire and Kirkcudbrightshire, recorded in 
the “‘ Field” at the time, may be seen in the Tullie House 
Museum, Carlisle. Another specimen, obtained near Kirk- 
connel (Dumfriesshire), is in the possession of the gentleman 
who shot it, and is now in Glasgow. These examples will 
be duly referred to in my book on the “ Birds of Dumtries- 
shire,” which it is hoped will shortly be published. 



Mr. P. W. Muwn and I, in our “ Birds of Hampshire,” recorded 
a Kittiwake’s egg, as picked up under the Culver Cliffs, Isle 
of Wight, in 1903. Mr. R. H. Fox, of Shanklin, now writes 
to me that Mr. G. T. Woods, the finder of the egg, after con- 
sultation with Mr. H. F. Poole, considers it to be a dwarfed 
egg of the Herring-Gull. 

This puts back the nesting of the Kittiwake in the Isle of 
Wight for many years, and it would be interesting to know the 
date of any authentic specimens in local collections. 



A FEMALE specimen of Brimnich’s Guillemot (Uria bruennicht) 
was picked up dead on the shore at Craigielaw Point, on the 
Haddingtonshire coast of the Firth of Forth, on December 
11th, 1908, and was sent to the Royal Scottish Museum by 
Mr. Valentine Knight. Judging by the size of the bill, which 
measures along the curve of the culmen only 1-2 inches, Mr. 
Clarke considers the specimen a bird of the year (W. Eagle 
Clarke, Ann. S.N.H., 1909, pp. 75 and 76). Mr. Clarke is, 
however, mistaken in stating that since 1895 ‘no other 
specimen has been detected either in British waters or on 
our shores,” for two have since been procured off the 
Yorkshire coast, and another, if correctly identified, has been 
seen off the Farne Islands (cf. swpra, p. 331). 



On the 14th, and again on the 2lst of March, I watched a 
Slavonian Grebe (Podicipes auritus) on Wilstone Reservoir, near 
Tring. The bird was in winter plumage, but the approaching 
change into breeding dress was heralded by a rufous tinge on 
the feathers of the flanks. On April 18th there was a Black- 
necked Grebe (Podicipes nigricollis) in full summer plumage 
on the same water. The slender, slightly recurved bill of this 
bird was in striking contrast with the thick, straight bill of 
the Slavonian Grebe. 


H. Foster writes to us from Hillsborough, co. Down, Ireland, 
that he saw a Swift (Cypselus apus) on April 20th—a very 
early date for the appearance of the bird in that locality. 

ROLLER IN CUMBERLAND.—An adult Coracias garrulus is 
recorded as having been shot by a keeper at Knorren, near 
Brampton, on June 17th, 1907 (L. E. Hope, Zool., 1909, p. 156). 

LONG-EARED OwL IN SHETLAND.—Three Asio otus were seen 
at Hayfield, near Lerwick, in February, 1909 (J. S. Tulloch, 
Ann. S.N.H., 1909, p. 115). 

Litre Ow. in NorrinGHAMSHIRE.—An example of Athene 
noctua is recorded at Widmerpool on December 10th, 1907, 
and another near Clifton Grove on March 14th, 1908 (J. W. 
Carr, Zool., 1909, p. 113). 

strepera was seen and one obtained on January 25th, 1909, 
on Morton Loch, near Tayport, and on the 29th a flock of 
thirty, of which three were shot and proved to be of this 
species, appeared on the same loch (W. Berry, Ann. S.N.H., 
1909, p. 116; cf. also supra, p. 348). An adult drake was 
shot out of a pack of Wigeon on March 8th, 1904, on Loch 
Stenness. Two days afterwards a female was seen on the 
same loch, and an adult male was seen on December 14th, 
1906 (H. W. Robinson, loc. cit.). 

Stock-DovE NESTING IN LANARKSHIRE.—In connection 
with the spread of the Stock-Dove (Columba nas) as a breeding 
Species in Scotland it is interesting to note that it “‘is now 
becoming quite established as a breeding species’? in the 
Blantyre district of the Clyde Valley (W. Stewart, Ann. S.N.H., 
1909, p. 115). 


nm ay 
=) | 
EE Lo. yd 



The Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist (Vol. I., No. 4, 
February 25th, 1909). 

THIs number of the Journal of the Hastings and St. Leonards. 
Natural History Society contains plenty to interest the 
ornithologist. The Society is much to be congratulated upon 
its vigour, and especially upon its strength in energetic and 
capable ornithological members—we believe it can boast of 
more M.B.O.U.’s among its members than any other local 
natural history society. The most important paper (pp. 
153-173, plates XVIII.-X XIV.) in this number is one by our 
own contributor, Mr. W. H. Mullens, on ‘“ Gilbert White and 
Sussex.”” In this paper, which originally took the form of 
a lecture delivered before the 12th Congress of the South- 
Kastern Union of Scientific Societies, Mr. Mullens traces, with 
great care and thoroughness, Gilbert White’s intimate connec- 
tion with Sussex, and especially with the villages of Harting, 
near Petersfield, and Ringmer, near Lewes. He used to. 
journey into Sussex frequently, and he greatly loved the 
Downs, of which he wrote: “I still investigate that chain of 
majestic mountains with fresh admiration every time I traverse: 
it.” There hesaw Great Bustards and Kites, while along the 
chalky cliffs of the Sussex shore ‘“‘ the Cornish Chough builds, 
I know,” he writes to Barrington. A careful paper is that by 
Mr. M. J. Nicoll on the Pipits which occur in the Hastings 
district. Here is recorded the fact, which we do not remember 
to have seen in print before, that a pair of Tawny Pipits 
‘‘ undoubtedly bred in Sussex in 1905, and: again, possibly, the 
following year,” while in 1906 Mr. Nicoll saw an adult bird 
collecting nesting materials (p. 183). Amongst the ‘‘ Annual 
Notes,” by the Rev. E. N. Bloomfield, we may note the 
following interesting records, which we do not think have 
been previously referred to :—Red-footed Falcon, Ashford, 
June 10th, 1908; Night-Heron, Lydd, October 3rd, 1906 ;. 
Spoonbill, two, Romney Marsh, April Ist, 1908 (p. 187). 




abietina, Phylloscopus collybita. See 
Chiffchaff, East European. 
Accentor, Alpine (additions), 409 ; 
at Fair Isle, 423. 
—— Hedge. See Sparrow, Hedge. 
accipitrinus, Asio. See Owl, Short- 
acuta, Dafila. 
adamsi, Colymbus. 
Additions to our Knowledge of 
British Birds since 1899, 24, 51, 
83, 125, 146, 228, 267, 305, 327, 
368, 406. 
alba, Ciconia. 
albellus, Mergus. 
albicilla, Haliaztus. 
albifrons, Anser. 
ALEXANDER, H. G., Notes on 
Pallas’s Sand-Grouse in Kent, 
134; Autumn and Winter 
Singing of Buntings, 237. 
ee na oe, On an lan Of 
Mapping Migratory Birds in 
their Nesting Areas, 322. 
alle, Mergulus. See Auk, Little. 
allent, Porphyriola. See Gallinule, 
alpina, Tringa. 
americana, Mareca.” 
Amputation of Lapwing’s Toes by 
means of Wool, 281. 
anglicus, Dendrocopus major. See 
Woodpecker, Great Spotted. 
anglorum, Puffinus. See Shear- 
water, Manx. 
—— Regulus regulus. 
apiaster, Merops. See Bee-Eater. 
apivorus, Pernis. See Buzzard, 
apus, Cypselus. 
aquaticus, Acrocephalus. 
bler, Aquatic. 

See Pintail. 

See Diver, 

See Stork. 
See Smew. 
See Eagle, 

See Goose, White- 

See Dunlin. 
See Wigeon, 

See Wren, 

See Swift. 
See War- 

| aquaticus, Cinclus. 

| arenaria, Calidris. 

| bailloni, 

See Dipper. 
See Puffin. 
See Diver, 

arctica, Fratercula. 

arcticus, Colymbus. 

See Sanderling. 

argentatus, Larus. See Gull, Her- 

ARNOLD, E. C., Notes on Barred 
Warbler in Norfolk, 200; Pec- 
toral Sandpiper in Norfolk, 
206; Aquatic Warbler in 
Sussex, 236. 

arquata, Numenius. See Curlew. 

arvensis, Alauda. See Lark, Sky. 

—— Anser. See Goose, Bean. 

assimilis, Puffinus. See Shearwater, 
Little Dusky. 

ater, Parus. See Titmouse, Coal. 

atricapilla, Muscicapa. See Fly- 
catcher, Pied. 

atrigularis, .Turdus. 

Auk, Great (additions), 331. 

Little (additions), 332. 

auritus, Podicipes. See 

Avocet (additions), 228, 417. ; 

avocetta, Recurvirostra. See Avocet. 

See Thrush, 


_ Baur, P. H., On the Nesting of the 

Seaup-Duck in Scotland, 209. 
Porzana. See Crake, 
Banks, R. C., Note on Grey Phala- 
rope in co. Wexford, 240. 
BARRINGTON, R. M., Pallas’s Grass- 
hopper-Warbler in __ Ireland, 
230; Note on Little Bunting 
in Ireland, 238. 

J. Rrytout, Note on Albinistic 
Variety of the Redwing, 277. 

| Bee-Eater (additions), 411. 

Notes on the 



Solitary Sandpiper and other 

Waders in Kent, 156% 
Goosander in Bedfordshire, 
384; the Bill of the Great 

Northern Diver, 387. 

belgica, Limosa. See Godwit, Black- 

on an Escaped Nutcracker, 


biarmicus, Panurus. See Titmouse, 

Bibliography of British Birds 
Notieed, 340. 

bifasciata, Loxia. See Crossbill, 


Brrp, Rev. M:. C.. H.,. Notes on 
Green-backed Gallinule in Nor- 
folk, 134; The Average 
Weight of Snipe, 312. 

Bird-Hunting in Wild Europe, Re- 
viewed, 284. 



brachyrhyncus, Anser. 

Brambling (nestling), 193; in West 
Sutherland, 347. 

brenta, Bernicla. See Goose, Brent. 

British Ornithologists’ Union, the 
Jubilee of the, 274; and Rare 
Breeding Birds, 274. 

bruennicht, Uria. See Guillemot. 

Bullfinech, British, 130; 
193, 196. 

—— Northern (additions), 411. 

bulwert, Bulweria. See Petrel, 

Bunting, Lapland, in Ireland, 248. 

—— lLarge-billed Reed, in Kent, 

See Goose, 


ric Stee Little, in Ireland and Norfolk, 

Birds, How to Attract and Protect | 

Wild, Reviewed, 172. 
Bittern, in Hampshire, 
Yorkshire,, 100 ; 

OG =) SER: 
in Hadding- 

tonshire, 140; in MHertford- 
shire, 309; in Pembrokeshire, 

—— American, in Ireland, 276; 
(additions), 414. 

—— Little (additions), 414. 

Blackbird (nestling), 189. 

BLADEN, W. WEtLs, Note on 

Nesting of the Shoveler in 
Staffordshire, 95. 

BLATHWAYT, Rev. F. L., Note on 
Inland Nesting of the Sheld- 
Duck and Nesting of Pochard, 
Shoveler and Teal in Lincoln- 
shire, 95. 

Bluethroat in Norfolk, 200; on the 
Isle of May, 346. 

BonuoTe, J. L., Note on the East 
European Chiffchaff in the 
Isle of Wight, 233. 

borealis, Motacilla. See Wagtail, 

—— Parus. See Titmouse, 
thern Marsh. 

—— Phylloscopus. 

BoRRER, CLIFFORD, Note on the 
Northern Willow-Wren in Nor- 
folk, 342. 

boscas, Anas. 


See Warbler, 

See Mallard. 

238; at Sule-Skerry, 314. 
—— Rustic, at Fair Isle, 423. 
—— Snow (nestling), 193; 

tions), 411. 

—— Yellow (nestling), 196. 


Buntings, Autumn and Winter 
Singing of, 204, 237. 
| Bunyarp, Percy F., Nesting 

Habits of the Marsh-Warbler, 
183; On the Eggs of the Tree- 
Pipit, 335. 

Bustard, Great (additions), 147. 

Little (additions), 148. 

BUTTERFIELD, W. Ruskin, Note on 
Sooty Shearwaters in Sussex 
and Kent, 243. 

Buzzard, Honey, in North Wales, 
36; in Shropshire, 204; in 
Ireland, 276, 277; in England, 
283, 314. 

—— Rough - legged 
4 © 



cachinnans, Larus. See 
Yellow-legged Herring. 
calidris, Totanus. See Redshank. 


campestris, Anthus. See  Pipit, 

canartius, Serinus. See Serin, 

candicans, Falco. See Falcon, 

candidus, Himantopus. 
canorus, Cuculus. 

See Stilt, 

See Cuckoo. 


cantiaca, Sterna. See Tern, Sand- 

cantiana, Afgialitis. 
Kentish. » 

canutus, Tringa. See Knot. 

Capercaillie (additions), 127. 

See Plover, 

carolina, Porzana. See Crake, 

caryocatactes, Nucifraga. See Nut- 

casarca, Tadorna. See Sheld-Duck, 

caspia, Sterna. See Tern, Caspian. 

castro, Oceanodroma. See Petrel, 
Madeiran Fork-tailed. 

caudata, Acredula. See Titmouse, 

Cave, CuHarutes J. P., Note on 
Alpine Swift in Pembrokeshire, 

certhiola, Locustella. See Warbler, 
Pallas’s Grasshopper. 

cervinus, Anthus. See Pipit, Red- 

Chaffinch (nestling), 192, 196; 
Breeding in Winter, 381, 424. 

CHAMPERNOWNE, A. W., Notes on 
White Wagtail interbreeding 
with Pied Wagtail, 202; Grey 
Phalarope in Summer in 
Devonshire, 204. 

Chiffchaff, throughout the Winter 

at Penzance, 247; Geogra- 
phical forms of, 343. 
—— The East European, in the 

Isle of Wight, 233. 
chloris, Ligurinus. See Greenfinch. 
Chough in Lancashire, 208. 

cineraceus, Circus. See Harrier, 

cinerea, Ardea. See Heron, 

cinerea, Sylvia. See Whitethroat, 

cinereus, Anser. - See Goose, Grey 

circia, Querquedula. See Garganey. 

cirlus, Emberiza. See Bunting, 

citrinella, Emberiza. See Bunting, 

CLARKE, W. Eactuz, Note on Tufted 
Duck in Scotland, 132. 

clarkei, Turdus musicus. 
Thrush, British Song. 

clypeata, Spatula. See Shoveler. 



CosurNn, F., Note on Little Owl in 
Warwickshire and Worcester- 

shire, 344. 

celebs, Fringilla. See Chaffinch. 

celestis, Gallinago. See Snipe, 

ceruleus, Parus. See Titmouse, 

cesia, Sitta. See Nuthatch. 

collaris, Accentor. See Accentor, 

collurio, Lantus. 

CottrHRuP, C. W., Note on Eggs of 
the Cuckoo, 424. 

See Shrike, Red- 

| communis, Grus. See Crane, 

—— Turtur. See Dove, Turtle 

Compton, M. Wtinzar, Note on 
Want of Down in Mallards’ 
Nests, 62. 

CONGREVE, W. MarIrLANnpb, Note on 
Rare Birds in Pembrokeshire, 

corax, Corvus. See Raven. 

cornix, Corvus. See Crow, Hooded. 

cornuta, Tadorna. See Sheld-Duck, 


Courser, Cream-coloured (additions), 

CowaRrb,. Ts A, See Newstead, 

—— Notes on Kentish Plover in 
Cheshire, 32; Black Tern in 
Cheshire, 33; Pallas’s Sand- 
Grouse in Cheshire, 167. 

Crake, Baillon’s (additions), 146. 

—— Carolina (additions), 129. 

—— Corn, Absence in Certain 
Counties in 1907, 248. 

—— Little (additions), 129. 

—— Spotted, in Sussex, 32; (addi- 
tions), 129, 417. 

Crane, Common, in Anglesey, 62 ; 
(additions), 147,417; Bones of, 
in Ireland, 276. 

crecca, Nettton. See Teal. 

Creeper, Tree (nestling), 195. 

| cristata, Fuligula. See Duck, 

cristatus, Parus. See Titmouse, 

Crossbill, Breeding in co. Dublin, 
203; (additions), 411. 

—— Two-barred, in Sussex, 
at Fair Isle, 423. 



Crow, Hooded, Marking, 364. 

Cuckoo, Habits of the, 66; Method 
of Depositing Egg, 131; Notes 

on, in India, 197; Courting | 
Performance of the, 239; 
Arrival in March, 247; Eggs 
of, 424. 

CumMMINGS, Bruce F., Bird Roosts 
and Routes, 119. 

Curlew, Common, Nest with Five © 

Eggs, 136; (nestling), 196; 
(additions), 270. 
—— Stone (additions), 148; in 

Yorkshire, 314. 
curonica, Algialitis. 

Little Ringed. 
curruca, Sylvia. 

curvirostra, Loxia. 

See Plover, 
See Whitethroat, 

See Crossbill. 


deserti, Saxicola. 

Dewar, J. M., Field Notes on the 

Melizophilus  un- 
See Warbler, British 

See Wheatear, 

Powder-down of the Heron, 

Dipper in Kent, 347. 

Diver, Black-throated (additions), 

333, 421. 

—— Great Northern, Plumage of, 
277 3, Dil of; 387. 

—— Red-throated (additions), 333 

—— White-billed (additions), 332. 

domesticus, Passer. See Sparrow, 

dominicus, Charadrius. 
Lesser Golden. 

Dotterel (additions), 149. 

dougalli, Sterna. See Tern, Roseate. 

Dove, Stock, Nesting on Buildings, 
31; (additions), 125, 416; 
Nesting in Lanarkshire, 426. 

—— Turtle (additions), 125, 417; 
in co. Donegal in Winter, 

Dublin Bay, Bird-life in, 171. 

Duck, Ferruginous (additions), 57, 
416; in Sussex and Brecon- 
shire, 377. 

—— Long-tailed (Noble), 
Hertfordshire, 309 ; 
land, 348 ; 

See Plover, 

Soe” an 
Adult In- 
(additions), 416. 

| Duck, Tufted (Noble), 37; 


tions), 83, 416; Unusual Nest- 
ing Site and Incubation Period 
of, 97; in + Scotland,” 152% 
Nesting in the Outer Hebrides, 
165; at Fair Isle, 423. 

Ducks. See Eider, Gadwall, Gar- 
ganey, Golden-Eye, Goosander, 
Mallard, Merganser, Pintail, 
Pochard, Scaup, Scoter, - 
Sheld-Duck; Shoveler, Smew, 
Teal, Wigeon. 

Ducks’ Eggs, On the Identification 
of, 18, 37, 94. 

Dunlin, A Marked, 367. 

Eagle, White-tailed, in Hereford, 
314; in Essex, 383. 

eburnea, Pagophila. 

Editorial, 1. 

Eider Duck (Noble), 39; off South 
Devon in April, 31; Incuba- 
tion-period of, 65; (additions), 
85, 416; Food of, 344, 384. 

See Gull, 

_ —— King (additions), 86. 

 erythrina, Pyrrhula. 

| europeus, Caprimulgus. 

Evuison, Rev. A., Bird-life in a 
Spring Snowstorm, 301. 

Exton, Henry B., Note on Ampu- 
tation of Lapwing’s Toes by 
means of Wool, 281. 

epops, Upupa. See Hoopoe. 

See Grosbeak, | 

erythropus, Anser. See Goose, 
Lesser White-fronted. 

See Night- 


| Evans, C. I., Note on Autumn and 

Winter Singing of Buntings, 237. 
—— WiLtLiAmM, Notes on Stark’s 
Record of the Breeding of the 
Scaup-Duck at Loch Leven, 
132;  Goldecrests from East 
Coast Lighthouses, 232. 
eversmanni, Phylloscopus trochilus. 
See Wren, Willow, Northern 
excubitor, Lanius. 
Great Grey. 

See Shrike, 

Fair Isle, The Birds of, 422. 
falcinellus, Plegadis. See 


INDEX. 433 
Falcon, Greenland (additions), 413. | fulicarius, Phalaropus. See Phala- 
——TIceland, in Scotland, 310; rope, Grey. 

(additions), 414. 
—— Red-footed, in Norfolk, 244; 
in Kent, 427. 
familiaris, Certhia. 
FEILDEN, Cot. H. W., Notes on 
Climbing Movements 

See Creeper, 

or) the. | 

Green Woodpecker, 93; Some © 

Sussex Ravens, 279. 

ferina, Fuligula. See Pochard, 
Finch. See Bullfinch, Chaffinch, 

Greenfinch, Hawfinch, Serin. 
Flamingo (additions), 24. 
flammea, Strix. See Owl, Barn. 
flava, Motacilla. See Wagtail, Blue- 
fluviatilis, Sterna. 

See Tern, 

fuliginosa, Sterna. See Tern, Sooty. 

Fulmar. See Petrel. 

fusca, Gidemia. See Scoter, Velvet. 

fuscus, Larus. See Gull, Lesser 

| —— Totanus. See Redshank, 

Gadwall (Noble), 20, 94; (addi- 

tions), 51, 415; in Somerset, 

| galactodes, Aedon. 

Flycatcher, Pied, Nesting in Ayr- | 

shire, 139; (additions), 410. 

— — Red-breasted, in Norfolk, 34, 
200; Irish Records of, 248, 

_ 410; in Barra and at the Butt 

of Lewis, 313; (additions), 

—— Spotted (nestling), 196. 

Food of some British Birds, The, 
reviewed, 315. 

——of Red-breasted Merganser, 

311; of Eider Duck, 344, 

Forrest, H. E., Notes on Nut- 
hatches breeding at  Llan- 
dudno, 59; Golden Oriole in 
Shropshire, 59; Hoopoe in 
Shropshire, 60; Short-eared 

Owl Breeding in Pembroke- 
shire, 60; An Early Recorded 
Waxwing in Wales, 91; Black 
Redstarts in Merioneth, 165; 
Honey-Buzzard in Shropshire, 
204; Smew in Montgomery, 
311; Lesser Spotted Wood- 
pecker in Merioneth, 343; 
Hoopoe in Merioneth, 343; 
Velvet Scoter in Shropshire, 
345; Red Variety of the 
Common Partridge, 345; Chaf- 
finch Breeding in Winter, 381, 

Fow.LeER, W. WaArRDE, Note on 
Little Owl in North-west 

Oxfordshire, 280. 

100; in Aberdeenshire, 140; 
Probable Nesting in Scotland, 
245; in Fifeshire, 348, 426; 
in Orkney, 426. 

See Warbler, 


galbula, Oriolus. See Oriole, 

Gate, A. R., Note on Yellow- 

browed Warbler in Yorkshire, 

gallicus, Cursorius. 

Gallinule, Allen’s (additions), 146. 

—— Green-backed, in Norfolk, 134. 

gambeli, Anser. See Goose, White- 

Garganey (Noble), 22; (additions), 
54, 415; in Shetland, 245; 
Breeding in East Yorkshire, 

garrulus, Ampelis. See Waxwing. 

Coracias. See Roller. 

Gitroy, Norman, Notes on Ducks’ 
Eggs and Down, 94; Nesting 
Habits of the Marsh-Warbler, 

See Courser, 

235; On the Nesting of the 
Goosander, 400. 

giu, Scops. See Owl, Scops. 

glacialis, Colymbus. See Diver, 
Great Northern. 

—— Fulmarus. See Petrel, Ful- 

—— Harelda. See Duck, Long- 

GLADSTONE, Hues S8., Note on Red 
Grouse and Black Grouse Hy- 
brids, 425. 

glandarius, Garrulus. 

glareola, Totanus. 

See Jay. 
See Sandpiper, 


glaucion, Clangula. See Golden- 

glaucus, Larus. See Gull, Glaucous. 

Godwit, Bar-tailed (additions), 419. 

— — Black-tailed, in Kent, 

(additions), 270, 419; at Fair 

Isle, 424. | 
Goldcrest. See Wren, Golden- 
Golden-Eye (Noble), 38;  (addi- 
tions), 416. 

Goosander (Noble), 40; (additions), 
87, 416; in Bedfordshire, 384 ; 
Notes on the Nesting of the, 

Goose, Bean (additions), 25. 

—— Brent (additions), 27. 

—— Greater Snow (additions), 27. 

—— Grey Lag (additions), 24, 415. 

—— Lesser White-fronted (addi- 
tions), 25. 

—— Pink-footed (additions), 26. 

—— Snow (additions), 27; in co. 

Mayo, 348. 

White-fronted (additions), 25. 

GRABHAM, OxLEy, The Colony of | 

Little Terns at Spurn Point, 
Yorkshire, 317. 

graculus, Phalacrocorax. See Shag. 

—— Pyrrhocorax. See Chough. 
gravis, Puffinus. See Shearwater, 

Gray, LEoNARD, Note on Lesser 
Redpoll Nesting in Essex, 203. 
Grebe, Black-necked, 
Laneashire, 282; in Hertford- 
shire, 309, 426; on the Solway, 
314; (additions), 368, 421. 
—— Great Crested, Late Nests of, 
171, 242; in Scotland, 246; 
(additions), 333, 421. 
—— Little, Late Nests of, 171, 242. 
—— Red-necked (additions), 333. 
—— Slavonian (additions), 334, 
421; in Hertfordshire, 426. 
Greenfinch (nestling), 192, 196. 

gregarius, Vanellus. See Plover, 

griseigena, Podicipes. See Grebe, 

griseus, Macrorhamphus. See Snipe, 

—— Nycticorax. See Heron, 
—— Puffinus. See Shearwater, 


99; | 

in North. 

| —— Common, 

|- —_— ——— Mediterranean 

| grylle, Uria. 


grisola, Muscicapa. See Flycatcher, 

Grosbeak, Scarlet, on the Isle of 
May, 346. 
Grouse, Black (additions), 127, 
417; Supposed from _ Irish 

Caves, 167. 
—— Red (additions), 128; and Black 
Grouse Hybrids, 384, 425. 
—— Sand. See Sand-Grouse. 
See Guillemot, Black. 
Guillemot, Black (additions), 332. 
— — Briinnich’s (additions), 331; in 
the Firth of Forth, 425. 
Incubation period 
of, 65. 
Gull, Black-headed, Abnormal Eggs 
of, 64; Food of, 316. 
tions), 328. 

| —— Glaucous (additions), 328, 420. 

| —— Great Black-backed  (addi- 
tions), 420. 
—— Herring, Incubation Period 
of, 65. 

— Yellow-legged 
tions), 328. 
—— Iceland (additions), 329, 420. 


_ —— Ivory (additions), 329. 

—— Kittiwake (additions), 420; 
Nesting Records of, in the Isle 
of Wight, 425. 

—— Lesser Black-backed, Incuba- 
tion Period of, 65; (additions), 
420. ; 

—— Little (additions), 327, 420. 

—— Sabine’s, in Norfolk, 208; in 
Lincolnshire, 241; in the Inner 
Hebrides, 246; (additions), 

—— Wedge-tailed (additions), 327. 

Gulls, Marking, 366. 

GuRNEY, J. H., Note on Grey- 
headed Wagtail in Sussex, 90. 

Haicu, G. H. Caton, Notes on 
Barred Warbler in  Lincoln- 
shire, 232; Yellow-browed 
Warbler in Lincolnshire, 233 ; 
Buff-breasted Sandpiper in 
Lincolnshire, 241; Sabine’s 
Gull in Lincolnshire, 241. 

Hate, Rev. J. R., Note on Increase 
of Wood-Pigeons in Orkney, 


haliaetus, Pandion. See Osprey. 

Harrier, Marsh, in Norfolk, 93; 
(additions), 412. 

—— Montagu’s, in Surrey, 
im) Ireland, 310: 

Harrison, T., Note on Change of 
Nesting Sites through Human 
Influence, 99. 


HARTERT, Dr. Ernst, On the 
British Bullfineh, 130. 
HarviE-Brown, J. A., Notes on 

the Distribution of the Common 
Scoter in Secotland, 134; 

. Tufted Ducks Nesting in the 
Outer Hebrides, 165. 

Hastings and East Sussex Naturalist, 
Reviewed, 427. 

Hawfinch (nestling), 192; in Scot- 
land, 243; in Summer in East 
Lothian, 314; (additions), 410; 
at Fair Isle, 423. 

HERBERT, F. A., Have Starlings 
increased beyond the Capacity 
of Nesting Sites, 92. 

Heron, Common, Field Notes on 
the Powder-Down of __ the, 

—— Night (additions), 414; in 
Kent, 427. 

—— Purple, in Norfolk, 35; in 
Caithness, 244. 

Heronries, Scottish, 244; Lincoln- 

shire and Somersetshire, 283. 

hiaticula, Mgialitis. See Plover, 

Hobby Nesting in Sussex, 
(additions), 414. 

Hoopoe in Shropshire, 60; in Ross- 
shire, 208; in Merioneth, 343 ; 
(additions), 412. 

376 : 

hortensis, Sylvia. See Warbler, 

Hunter, R. Hamitton, Note on 
Crossbill Breeding in co. 
Dublin, 203. 

hybrida, Hydrochelidon. See Tern, 

hyperboreus, Chen. See Goose, 

—— Phalaropus. See Phalarope, 

Hypolais sp. See Warbler, Icterine. 
hypoleucus, Totanus. See Sand- 
piper, Common. 

_ interpres, Strepsilas. 

Ibis, Glossy, in Northumberland 
and Cornwall, 244 ; (additions), 
egnicapillus, Regulus. 
tliacus, Turdys. See Redwing. 
impennis, Alca. See Auk, Great. 
Incubation Periods, 64, 97. 
Red Variety of the Common 
Partridge, 311. 

See Wren, 

See Turnstone. 

Ireland, Rare Birds in, 276. 

Irish Birds, 276. 

A List of, reviewed, 248. 
Falco. See Falcon, 

espida, Alcedo. 

See Kingfisher. 

Jackdaw, Domed Nests of, 139. 
JACKSON, ANNIE C., on the Mouth- 

coloration of some Nestling 
Birds, 195. 

_ Jay in Ireland, 248. 

| lapponicus, Calcarius. 

Kersarn, Rev; J ses “Notes son 
Nesting Records of the Kitti- 
wake in the Isle of Wight, 425. 

Kent, The Birds of, 378. 

Kingfisher (nestling), 194; Late 
Nest of, 204; (additions), 

KirKMAN, F. B., Variation in the 
Nests of the Arctic and Common 
Terns, 78, 101. 

Kite, Black (additions), 413. 

_ Knot (additions), 268, 418. 

lagopus, Buteo. See Buzzard, 
lapponica, Limosa. 


See Godwit, 

See Bunting, 

Lapwing, Nest with Five Eggs, 136 ; 
(nestling),196; (additions), 228; 
Amputation of Toes by Means 
of Wool, 281; Eggs Hatching 
after a Snowstorm, 302. 

Lark, Sky (nestling), 194, 196. 


Leiau, A. G., Notes on Redshank 
Breeding in Warwickshire, 33 ; 
Curious Site for a Robin’s 
Nest, 90; Late Nests of the 
Great Crested and Little Grebes, 

171; Little Owl,in Warwick- 
shire, 240. 

lentiginosus, Botaurus. See Bittern, 

leucoptera, Hydrochelidon. See 
Tern, White-winged Black. 

leucopterus, Larus. See Gull, 

See Spoonbill. 
See Petrel, 

leucorodia, Platalea. 

leucorrhoa, Procellaria. 
Leach’s Fork-tailed. 

—— Saxicola enanthe. 
ear, Greenland. 

longicaudata, Bartramia. 
piper, Bartram’s. 

lugubris, Motacilla. 

luscinia, Daulias. 

See Wheat- 
See Sand- 
See Wagtail, 

See Nightingale. 

luscinioides, Locustella. See War- 
bler, Savi’s. 

LynEs, Com. H., z.n., Note on 
Pebble Nest of a Ringed 

Plover, 136. 

MacxkeitH, T. THornton, Note on 
the Courting Performance of 
the Cuckoo, 239. 

macrura, Sterna. See Tern, Arctic. 

macularius, Totanus. See Sand- 
piper, Spotted. 

maculata, Tringa. 

MacratH, Mayor H. A. F., Notes 
on the Common Cuckoo in 
India, 197. 

major, Dendrocopus. See Wood- 
pecker, Great Spotted. 

—— Gallinago. See Snipe, Great. 

Parus. See Titmouse, Great. 

Mallard (Noble), 20; Want of 
Down in Nests of, 62; Hatch- 
ing in October, 245. 

MapuetTon, H. W., on the Song of 
the Wood-Warbler, 226. 

Mapping Migratory Birds in their 
Nesting Areas, On a Plan of, 

marila, Fuligula. 

martius, Picus. 

See Sandpiper, 

See Scaup-Duck. 
See Woodpecker, 


maruetta, Porzana. See Crake, 

marinus, Larus. 

Marked Birds, 35, 171, 245, 246. 

Marking Birds, A Plan for, 35. 

Notes on the Work at the 
Rossitten Station, 362. 

MarrRiaGE, A. W., Note on Little 
Owl in Hampshire, 310. 

Martin, Sand (nestling), 192. 

May, Isle of, Rare Birds on the, 346. 

May, W. Norman, Note on Grey 
Wagtail Nesting in Berkshire, 

MEADE-WALDo, E. G. B., Notes on 
Pied Wagtail Rearing Three 
Broods, 130; Old English 
Nesting Bottles, 164. 

Mep.uicott, W. 8., Note on Curious 
Site of a Wood-Warbler’s Nest, 

See Gull, Great 

melanocephala, Motacilla. See Wag- 
tail, Black-headed. 
mclanocephalus, Larus. See Gull, 

Mediterranean Black-headed. 
melanope, Motacilla. See Wagtail, 
melba, Cypselus. 
merganser, Mergus. 
Merganser, Red-breasted 
40; Food of, 311. 

merula, Turdus. See Blackbird. 

Meyrick, Cou. H., Note on Autumn 
and Winter Singing of Buntings, 

migrans, Milvus. See Kite, Black. 

(Migration) ‘“‘ Report on the Immi- 
grations of Summer Residents 
in the Spring of 1907,” Re- 
viewed, 247. 

—— On a Plan of Mapping Mi- 
gratory Birds in their Nesting 
Areas, 322. 

Minas, J. G., Note on Red Grouse 
and Black Grouse Hybrids, 384. 

minor, Dendrocopus. See Wood- 
pecker, Lesser Spotted. 

minuta, Ardetta. See Bittern, Little. 

Sterna. See Tern, Little. 

—— Tringa. See Stint, Little. 

minutilla, Tringa. See Stint, 

minutus, Larus. 
modularis, Accentor. 

See Swift, Alpine. 
See Goosander. 

See Gull, Little. 
See Sparrow, 

INDEX. 437 

mollissima, Somateria. See Eider | Nicuoxts, J. B., Notes on Black- 

Duck. headed Wagtail in Kent, 165 ; 
monedula, Corvus. See Jackdaw. Two-barred Crossbill in Sussex, 
montana, Perdix. See Partridge, 165. 

Common. Nicott, M. J., The Large-billed 
montanus, Passer. See Sparrow, Reed-Bunting in Kent, 88; 

Tree. Notes on a Sussex Rufous 
montifringilla,  Fringilla. See Warbler, 201; Pectoral Sand- 

Brambling. piper and Bartram’s Sandpiper 
morinellus, Eudromias. See in Kent; 205°: The, First 

Dotterel. British Example of the Red-_ 
Mutitens, W. H., Some _ Early throated Pipit, 278. 

British Ornithologists and their Nightingale in Derbyshire, 66; 

Works :—I. William ‘Turner, (additions), 407. 

5; .1T: Richard Carew, 42; 
Ill. Christopher Merrett, 109 

and 151; IV. Martin Martin, 
Las. Ve Robert: Plot; 21s’; 
VI. Thomas Pennant, 259; 

VII. John Ray and Francis 
Willughby, 290; VIII. Thomas 
Bewick and George Montagu, 

Si: dt William Mac- 
gillivray and William Yarrell, 

Murpocu, G. W., Note on a Late 
Nest of the Kingfisher, 204. 
musicus, Turdus. See Thrush, Song. 

mutus, Lagopus. See Ptarmigan. 

neevia, Locustella. See Warbler, 
neglecta, CU strelata. 
neglectus, Anser. See Goose, Bean. 
Netson, T. H., Note on Pallas’s 
Sand-Grouse in Yorkshire, 134. 
Nesting Bottles, Old English, 164. 
—— Sites, Change of, through 
Human Influence, 99. 
Nestlings, The Down-plumage and 
Mouth-coloration of some, 

See Petrel, 

186; the Mouth-coloration of 
some, 195. 

Nests, Variation in the, of the 
Arctic and Common Terns, 78, 


Common Crane in Anglesey, 62. 
—— RoseEert, and T. A. Cowarp, 
On the Occurrence of Schlegel’s 
Petrel in Cheshire, 14. 
Newton, Life of the late Prof. 
ALFRED, 422. 

Nightjar Breeding in Captivity, 244. 

nigra, CUdemia. See  Scoter, 

—— Hydrochelidon. See Tern, 

nigricollis, Podicipes. See Grebe, 


nisoria, Sylvia. See Warbler, 

nivalis, Chen. See Goose, Greater 

—— Plectrophenax. See Bunting, 

Nosie, HEATLEY, On the "Tdenti- 
fication of Ducks’ Eggs, 18, 37, 
94; Notes on Supposed Wild 
Swans on Coll, 61; Common 
Terns on the Holyhead Sker- 
ries, 64, 

noctua, Athene. See Owl, Little. 

Norfolk, Birds in, in 1907, 34. 

Nutcracker, An Escaped, 28, 92; 
in Norfolk, 35 ; (additions), 411. 

Nuthatch: Breeding at Llandudno, 
59; in Pembrokeshire, 378. 

nyroca, Fuligula. See Duck, 
oceanicus, Oceanites. See Petrel, 

ochropus. Totanus. 
enanthe, Saxicola. 
aenas, Columba. 
eruginosus, Circus. 
OGILVIE-GRANT, W. R., Notes on 
the Northern Marsh-Titmouse 
in England, 277; Red Grouse 
and Black Grouse Hybrids, 386. 

See Sandpiper, 
See Wheatear, 

See Dove, Stock. 
See Harrier, 


OLDHAM, CHARLES, Notes on Lesser 
Redpoll Nesting in Surrey, 91 ; 
Cirl Bunting Singing in October, 

204; Slavonian and _  Black- 
necked Grebes in Hertford- 
shire, 426. 

Oriole, Golden, in Shropshire, 59 ; 
in Fifeshire, 138; in Lincoln- 
shire, 208; (additions), 409; at 
Fair Isle, 423. 

Ornithologists, Some Early British. 
and their Works :—I. William 
Turner, 5; II. Richard Carew, 
42; III. Christopher Merrett. 
109. and) Voh: » FVe Martin 
Martin, 173; V. Robert Plot, 
218; VI... Thomas 
259; VII. John Ray and 
Francis Willughby, 290; VIII. 
Thomas Bewick and George 
Montagu, 351; IX. William 
Macgillivray and William 
Yarrell, 389. 

Osprey in Ireland, 277; 
383 ; (additions), 414. 

ostralegus, Hamatopus. See Oyster- 

otus, Asio. See Owl, Long-eared. 

Owl, Barn (Luminous), 35. 

—— Little, in Wiltshire, 100; in 
Warwickshire, 240, 344; in 
North-west Oxfordshire, 280; 
in Hampshire, 310; in Wor- 
cestershire, 344; (additions), 

—-— Long-eared, in Shetland, 426. 

—— Scops, in Cumberland, 100; 
in Fifeshire, 140; off Aberdeen- 
shire, 204. 

— — Short-eared, Breeding in Not- 
tinghamshire, 30; in the 
Isle of Man, 36; Breeding in 
Pembrokeshire, 60. 

—— Snowy, in the Outer Hebrides, 
140; (additions), 412. 

Oyster-Catcher, Incubation Period 
of, 65; Method of Feeding on 
the Edible Mussel, 168; (nest- 
ling), 196. 

in Essex, 

paludosus, Anser. See Goose, Bean. 

palumbus, Columba. See Pigeon, 

palustris, Emberiza pyrrhuloides. 
See Bunting, Large-billed Reed. 


| —— Fulmar (additions), 

_ Phalarope, 

— phenicurus, Ruticilla. 


| palustris, Parus. See Titmouse, 

| paradoxus, Syrrhaptes. See Sand- 
Grouse, Pallas’s. 

parasiticus, Stercorarius. See Skua, 

ParRKIN, THomaAs, Note on the 
Black-throated Thrush in Kent, 

Partridge, Common (additions), 
128; Red Variety of the, 311, 

—— Red-legged (additions), 128; 
Remarkable Variety of, 240. 

parva, Muscicapa. See Flycatcher, 

—— Porzana. See Crake, Little. 

parvulus, Troglodytes. See Wren, 

Pastor. See Starling, Rose-coloured. 

Paton, E. R., Note on Scops Owl off 
Aberdeenshire, 204. 

Prarson, C. E., Note on Pheasant 
and Teal Laying in the same 
Nest, 98. 

pelagica, Procellaria. See Petrel, 

Pembrokeshire, Rare Birds in, 

penelope, Mareca. See Wigeon. 

PENROSE, Dr. F. G., Note on Barred 
Warbler in Norfolk, 200. 

perspicillata, Gdemia. See Scoter, 

Petrel, Bulwer’s, in Sussex, 282; 
(additions), 373. 

31a, a2 
in Lancashire, 388. 

—— Leach’s Fork-tailed, in Cum- 
berland and Laneashire, 282; 
(additions), 369. 

—— Madeiran Fork-tailed 
tions), 369. 

—-— Schlegel’s, in Cheshire, 14. 


_ —— Storm (additions), 369. 

Wilson’s (additions), 369. 
Grey, in Summer in 
Devonshire, 204; (additions), 
229, 417; in co. Wexford, 240; 
in Pembrokeshire, 377. 
Red-necked (acini: 
- 418. 


| Pheasant and Teal ania in same 

Nest, 98. 
See Red- 

start, Common. 


Pigeon, Wood, Nesting on a House, 
100; (nestling), 196; Diph- 
theria, the Results of the 
* British Birds ’’ Inquiry, 69 ; 
Renewed Inquiry, 199, 309; 
Increase of, in Orkney, 345. 

pileata, Pyrrhula pyrrhula. See 
Bullfineh, British. 
Pintail (Noble), 21; (additions), 

54, 415; in Shetland, 140. 
Pipit, Meadow (nestling), 191, 196. 
—— Red-throated (nestling), 191; 

the First British Example, 278 ; 

at Fair Isle, 423. 

—— Richard’s, in Norfolk, 279; at 

Fair Isle, 423. 

—— Tawny, nesting in Sussex, 427. 
—— Tree, On the Eggs of, 335; 

(additions), 409. 

—— Water, in Ireland, 276; (addi- 

tions), 409. 

platyrhyncha, Limicola. See Sand- 
piper, Broad-billed. 

Plover, Golden, Nest with Five 
Eggs, 136. 

—— Kentish, in Cheshire, 32; 

(additions), 150. 

—— Killdeer (additions), 150 ; 
Kent, 169. 

—-— Lesser Golden (additions), 150. 

—— Little Ringed, in North Uist, 

—— Ringed, Incubation Period of, 
65; Abnormal Eggs of, 134 ; 
Pebble Nest of, 136; (addi- 
tions), 150. 

—— Sociable (additions), 150. , 

Pochard, Common (Noble), 23; 
(additions), 56, 416; Nesting in 
Lincolnshire, 95; Nesting in 
South-west Kent, 96; Nesting 
in Ireland, 248; Nesting in 
North Kent, 383. 


— — Red-crested (additions), 56, 

pomatorhinus,  Stercorarius. See 
Skua, Pomatorhine. 

pomeranus, Lanius. See Shrike, 

Powder-Down of the Heron, Field 
Notes on the, 285. 

pratensis, Anthus. See Pipit, 

——  OCrex. See Crake, Corn. 

pratincola, Glareola. See Pratin- 

_ pusilla, Emberiza. 

| Rail, Land. 

Pratineole (additions), 149; at 

the Flannan Islands, 245. 

| Protection of Birds, Comparative 

Legislation for the, 340; in 
Yorkshire, 378. 
Ptarmigan (additions), 128, 417; 
supposed, from Irish Caves, 167. 
pubescens, Dendrocopus. Wood- 
pecker, Downy. 
| Puffin, Incubation Period of, 65. 
| pugnax, Machetes. See Ruff. 
| purpurea, Ardea. See Heron, 

Purple, 35. 

See Bunting, 

PycraFrr, W. P., Notes on Nest 
and Nestlings of the Bearded 

Tit, 58; Marsh-Harrier in 
Norfolk, 93; A Remarkable 
Variety of the Red-legged 

Partridge in Essex, 240. 
pyrrhula, Pyrrhula. See Bullfinch, 

See Crake, Corn. 

_ Ravens, Some Sussex, 279. 

Razorbill, Incubation Period of, 65. 

RATTRAY; Cor. R. H., Note on 
Lapwing’s Nest with Five Eggs, 

Redbreast. See Robin. 

Redpoll, Lesser, Nesting in Surrey, 
91; Nesting in Middlesex, 100 ; 
(nestling), 193, 196; Nesting 
in Essex, 203; Nesting in 
Sussex, 208. 

Redshank Breeding in Warwick- 
shire, 33: Inland Nesting of, 
99; Nest with Five Eggs, 136 ; 
(nestling), 196. 

——~ Spotted, in Kent, 99; 
tions), 270, 419. 

Redstart, Black, in Merioneth, 165 ; 
in Ireland, 276; in the Outer 
Hebrides and Fife, 313; in co. 
Waterford, 346; (additions), 407. 

—— Common (additions), 406. 

Redwing, Albinistic Variety of, 277. 

richardi, Anthus. See Pipit, 

Ricuarps, F. I., Notes on Yellow- 
browed Warblers, Red-breasted 
Flycatchers, ete., in Norfolk, 
200; Blue-headed Wagtail in 
Norfolk, 237. 



ridibundus, Larus. See Gull, Black- 

Rintour, LEonorA J. See BAXTER, 

riparia, Cotile. See Martin, Sand. 

RIvVIERE, B. B., Note on Stock- 

Dove Nesting on Buildings, 31. 

Robin, Curious Site for a Nest, 90; | 
(nestling), 189; Continental, in © 

Isle of Wight, 248; Eggs 
Hatching after a Snowstorm, 
303; British. on the Isle of 
May, 346. 

Rositnson, H. W., Notes on Great 
Grey Shrike in Scotland, 165 ; 
Distribution of the Common 
Scoter in Scotland, 166; Black- 

necked Grebes in North Laneca- | 

shire, 282; lLeach’s’ Fork- 
tailed Petrel in Cumberland 
and Lancashire, 282; Song- 
Thrush’s Nest in December, 
309; Food of the Red- 
breasted Merganser, Shi Be 

Food of the Eider Duck, 344; 

Fulmar Petrel in Lancashire, | 


Roller (additions), 411; in Cumber- 
land, 426. 

Roosts and Routes, Bird, 119. 

rosea, Rhodostethia. See 

roseus, Pastor. See Starling, Rose- 



—— Phenicopterus. See Flamingo. 

Note on Unusual Birds in 
Hertfordshire, 309. 

rubecula, Erithacus. See Robin. 

rubrirostris, Anser. See Goose, Grey 


rufa, Caccabis. See Partridge, Red- 

rujfescens, Linota. See Redpoll, 

—— Tringites. See Sandpiper, 

Ruff in co. Clare, 208; (additions), 

268, 419. | 
rufina, Netta. See Pochard, Red- | 
rustica, Hmberiza. See Bunting, | 

—— Hirundo. See Swallow. 

rusticula, Scolopax. See Woodcock. 

| scoticus, Lagopus. 

| serrator, Mergus. 


sabinii, Xema. See Gull, Sabine’s. 

Sanderling in Kent in July, 137; 
(additions), 418. 

Sand-Grouse, Pallas’s, in England, 
98; (additions), 126; in York- 
shire and Kent, 134; in 
Cheshire, 167; in Essex, 208 : 
in Yorkshire, 245; in Hert- 
fordshire, 309. 

Sandpiper, Bartram’s, in Kent, 
205; (additions), 269. 

—— Broad-billed (additions), 267. 

— — Buff-breasted, in Lincolnshire, 
241; (additions), 269. 

—— Common, Nest with Five Eggs, 
136; (nestling), 196. 

—— Curlew, in Kent in July, 137; 
(additions), 268, 418. 

—— Green (additions), 269. 

—— Pectoral, in Kent, 205; im 
Norfolk, 206; (additions), 267. 
—— Purple, in the Channel 

Islands, 33; (additions), 418. 

—— Solitary, Nest with Five Eggs, 
136; ‘in Kent, © tate Sia 
(additions), 269. 

| —— Spotted (additions), 269. 
| —— Wood (additions), 

269, 419; 
at Fair Isle, 424. 

scandiaca, Nyctea. See Owl, Snowy. 

Scaup-Duck (Noble), 38;  (addi- 
tions), 85, 416; Stark’s Record 
of the Breeding of, at Loch 
Leven, 132; On the Nesting 
of, in Scotland, 209 ; Correction, 
283; in Nottinghamshire, 280. 

scolopax, Gidicnemus. See Curlew, 

Seoter, Common (Noble), 39 ; (addi- 
tions), 86; Distribution of, in 
Scotland, 134, 166. 

—— Surf (additions), 87. 

—— Velvet (Noble), 40; in Shrop- 
shire, 345. 

See Grouse, Red. 

segetum, Anser. See Goose, Bean.